103416 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 120 

[Docket No.: FAA–2012–1058; Amdt. No. 

120–3] 

RIN 2120–AK09 

Drug and Alcohol Testing of 

Certificated Repair Station Employees 

Located Outside of the United States 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule requires 

certificated repair stations located 

outside the territory of the United States 

(U.S.) whose employees perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on 

certain air carrier aircraft to conduct 

alcohol and controlled substance testing 

in a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator and consistent with the 

applicable laws of the country in which 

the repair station is located. The final 

rule directs the repair station to comply 

with the requirements of the Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program published by 

the FAA and the Procedures for 

Transportation Workplace Drug Testing 

Programs published by the Department 

of Transportation, as proposed. 

However, this final rule also allows 

foreign governments, on behalf of 

certificated repair stations within their 

territories, and individual foreign repair 

stations subject to the rule to obtain the 

Administrator’s recognition of a 

compatible alternative that contains 

minimum criteria in lieu of compliance 

with certain components of the Drug 

and Alcohol Testing Program. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 17, 

2025, except for amendatory 

instructions 3, 8, and 11, which are 

effective December 20, 2027. The 

compliance date for this final rule is 

December 20, 2027. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Rodriguez Brown, Office of 

Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement 

Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8442; email: 

drugabatement@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

BASA—Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Background 

A. History 

B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions 

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Testing Under 14 CFR Part 120 and 49 

CFR Part 40 

B. Recognition of Existing Requirements or 

Testing Programs 

V. Responses to Comments 

A. Sovereignty of Other Nations and 

Existing Programs 

B. Final Rule Effective and Compliance 

Date 

C. Government Resources 

D. Specific Conflicts With Foreign Laws 

E. Human Rights Concerns 

F. Waivers and Exemptions 

G. Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements 

H. Safety Case 

I. Financial, Technical, and Operational 

Concerns 

J. Extending Testing to Part 121 

Maintenance Personnel 

K. EU and International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) 

L. Scope of Safety-Sensitive Functions 

M. Miscellaneous Comments 

V. Severability 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Summary of Regulatory Impact Analysis 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandate Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility 

G. Environmental Analysis 

VII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VIII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

This final rule implements section 

308(d)(2) of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2012 (codified in 49 U.S.C. 

44733) by requiring certificated part 145 

repair stations located outside the 

territory of the United States (U.S.) to 

ensure that employees who perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance functions 

on part 121 air carrier aircraft are 

subject to an alcohol and controlled 

substances testing program determined 

acceptable to the FAA Administrator 

and consistent with the applicable laws 

of the country in which the repair 

station is located. 

The NPRM proposed a foreign repair 

station subject to the rule (i.e., a foreign 

repair station that performs safetysensitive maintenance on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft) would need to 

implement an alcohol and drug testing 

program that meets the requirements of 

14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40, 

which is adopted as proposed in this 

final rule. In addition, in response to 

feedback received during the comment 

period of the proposed rulemaking, the 

final rule establishes a process for 

foreign governments, on behalf of 

certificated repair stations within their 

territories, and individual foreign repair 

stations subject to the rule to obtain a 

waiver based on the Administrator’s 

recognition of a country or foreign 

repair station’s existing requirements or 

testing program(s) promulgated under 

the laws of the country as a compatible 

alternative that contains minimum 

elements of 14 CFR part 120. 

Affected foreign repair stations that 

receive a waiver based on recognition by 

the Administrator will be relieved from 

comprehensive compliance with 

subparts E and F of 14 CFR part 120 (in 

turn, providing relief from 49 CFR part 

40) and will not need to seek further 

waivers or exemptions from 14 CFR part 

120 or 49 CFR part 40 under this final 

rule. All other foreign repair stations 

subject to the rule will be required to 

meet 14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 

40, subject to any waivers or exemptions 

that a repair station may obtain. Foreign 

repair stations subject to the rule must 

comply not later than December 20, 

2027. After this date, part 121 operators 

will be prohibited from using a foreign 

repair station employee to perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance outside the 

U.S. who is not covered by a waiver 

based on recognition by the 

Administrator or an FAA-mandated 

drug and alcohol testing program. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103417 

1These estimates are current as of April 2021 and 

sourced from the National Vital Information 

Subsystem (NVIS). NVIS is a subsystem of the 

Flight Standards Automation System, a 

comprehensive information system used primarily 

by inspectors to record and disseminate data 

associated with inspector activity and aviation 

environment. While there are more current 

estimates (as of March 2023, the rule would affect 

approximately 962 part 145 repair stations in about 

66 foreign countries), the 2021 numbers are used in 

the regulatory evaluation and Regulatory Impact 

Assessment to estimate cost. 

2For those foreign governments or repair stations 

that receive a waiver based on recognition, FAA 

will rely on the foreign government or repair station 

to ensure compliance with the recognized programs 

and notify FAA when the standards or conditions 

change. 

3 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certificated Repair 

Station Employees Located Outside of the United 

States, 88 FR 85137, 85139 (Dec. 7, 2023). 

4Public Law 112–95 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

This rulemaking will affect 

approximately 977 part 145 repair 

stations in about 65 foreign countries.1

Since the rule provides several 

pathways for compliance, the FAA 

estimated low and high-cost cases. The 

low-cost case assumes all countries with 

certificated repair stations will submit a 

request for a waiver based on 

recognition. The total unadjusted unit 

cost to the industry and the FAA to 

submit one request is $2,569. At a seven 

percent discount rate, the adjusted total 

cost for all 65 countries to submit this 

request is $116,690, $64,540 annualized, 

and $123,459 at a three percent discount 

rate, $64,521 annualized. In the highcost case, costs to foreign repair stations 

consist of developing an FAA-mandated 

drug and alcohol testing program, 

training, testing of safety-sensitive 

maintenance employees for drug and 

alcohol, and annual reporting. The total 

present value cost to foreign repair 

stations over five years, at a seven 

percent discount rate sums to $49.6 

million or $12.1 million annualized. At 

a three percent discount rate, the 

present value total cost to foreign repair 

stations is $55.6 million or $12.1 

million annualized. 

In the high-cost case, the FAA will 

incur costs associated with 

documenting these foreign repair 

stations and performing oversight and 

surveillance for those complying with 

FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing 

requirements under part 120 and 49 

CFR part 40. These costs only apply to 

compliance with the rule and not if a 

country or repair station has an 

approved waiver based on recognition.2

Total cost to FAA over five years, at 

seven percent present value, sums to 

$6.5 million with an annualized cost of 

$1.6 million. At three percent present 

value, total cost is $7.4 million with an 

annualized cost of $1.6 million. 

The table below shows the estimated 

costs to both part 145 repair stations and 

FAA over five years. The estimated total 

cost of the final rule, at seven percent 

present value, is $56.1 million and 

$63.0 million at 3 percent present value. 

TABLE 1—COST TO PART 145 FOREIGN REPAIR STATIONS AND FAA OVER 5 YEARS

[Millions—2022 U.S. dollars] * 

Year 

Program, training 

development, & 

maintenance 

Training Testing 

(drug and alcohol) 

Annual 

reports 

FAA 

oversight 

costs 

Total cost 

(7% PV) 

Total cost 

(3% PV) 

1 ................................................... $0.3 $7.6 $0.0 $2.1 $0.0 $9.4 $9.8 

2 ................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.5 6.8 2.1 12.8 13.8 

3 ................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.5 6.8 2.1 12.0 13.5 

4 ................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.6 6.9 2.1 11.3 13.1 

5 ................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.6 6.9 2.1 10.6 12.8 

Total ...................................... 1.6 11.7 18.2 29.4 8.2 56.1 63.0 

* These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the FAA’s authority. The FAA’s 

authority to issue rules on alcohol and 

drug testing is in 49 U.S.C. 45102, 

which directs the Administrator to 

prescribe regulations that establish a 

program requiring air carriers and 

foreign air carriers to conduct certain 

alcohol and controlled substances 

testing. 

This final rule is further promulgated 

under section 308 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(the Act), 49 U.S.C. 44733. Specifically, 

49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), titled ‘‘Alcohol 

and Controlled Substances Testing 

Program Requirements,’’ requires the 

FAA to ‘‘promulgate a proposed rule 

requiring that all part 145 repair station 

employees responsible for safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft [be] subject to an 

alcohol and controlled substances 

testing program determined acceptable 

by the [FAA] Administrator and 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located.’’ Additionally, this final rule 

is promulgated under section 2112 of 

the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 

Act of 2016, (the 2016 Act), which 

directed publication of a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in accordance 

with 49 U.S.C. 44733. The 2016 Act also 

required that the notice of proposed 

rulemaking be finalized. Further, 

section 302(b) of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 

118–63) requires that within 18 months 

of enactment of that Act, the 

Administrator shall issue a final rule 

carrying out the requirements of section 

2112(b) of the FAA Extension, Safety, 

and Security Act of 2016. 

III. Background 

A. History 

The FAA and the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation (OST) have 

long engaged in a regulatory partnership 

regarding drug and alcohol testing of 

persons in the aviation industry. These 

regulations are promulgated under 14 

CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40. The 

preamble to the NPRM provided a full 

history of the FAA and OST 

regulations.3

B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions 

1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(2012 Act).4 Section 308(d)(2) of the 

2012 Act, implemented in 49 U.S.C. 

44733, requires that the Administrator 

publish a proposed rule requiring that 

all part 145 repair station employees 

responsible for safety-sensitive 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103418 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5As noted in the NPRM, the legislation 

specifically used the term ‘‘controlled substances.’’ 

This term is also used in 49 U.S.C. 45102, which 

originally charged the FAA with prescribing 

regulations for air carriers and foreign air carriers 

to conduct certain drug and alcohol testing (i.e., 

eventual 14 CFR part 120). Title 49 U.S.C. chapter 

447 does not include a definition for ‘‘controlled 

substance.’’ However, the FAA finds that given (1) 

the deference to the FAA Administrator to 

determine program acceptability in 49 U.S.C. 44733 

and (2) the FAA’s firmly established drug and 

alcohol testing regulations based off the original 

authority in 49 U.S.C. 45102, ‘‘controlled 

substances’’ should be intended to mean the FAA’s 

current definition of ‘‘drug’’ as based off the 

definition of ‘‘controlled substances’’ provided by 

49 U.S.C. 45101. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 45101 

states that the definition of ‘‘controlled substance’’ 

means any substance under section 102 of the 

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control 

Act of 1970 specified by the Administrator of the 

FAA. 

6 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain 

Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside 

of the United States ANPRM, 79 FR 14621 (Mar. 17, 

2014). Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain 

Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside 

of the United States; Extension of Comment Period, 

79 FR 24631 (May 1, 2014). 

7 88 FR 85137 at 85140. 

8Public Law 114–190 (Jul. 15, 2016). 

9Section 2112(b) of Public Law 114–190. 

10Public Law 118–63 (May 16, 2024). 

11 88 FR 85137. 

12The NPRM proposed that a foreign repair 

station beginning operations more than one year 

after the effective date of the regulation implement 

a drug testing program no later than the date the 

repair station begins operations. The final rule 

removes this language because it is superfluous. As 

revised, 14 CFR 117(c)(2) requires all affected 

foreign repair stations to implement a drug testing 

program no later than three years from the 

publication date of the final rule. Accordingly, an 

affected foreign repair station that begins operations 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft outside the U.S. to be 

subject to an alcohol and controlled 5

substances testing program determined 

acceptable by the Administrator and 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located. The FAA considers all 

maintenance functions performed on 

part 121 air carrier aircraft to be safetysensitive under 14 CFR 120.105 and 

120.215. 

2. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In response to the congressional 

mandate, the FAA published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on March 17, 2014.6 The 

comment period for the ANPRM closed 

July 17, 2014. The FAA received 74 

substantive comments of both support 

and opposition. The FAA discussed and 

responded to the comments received as 

part of the NPRM.7

3. FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 

Act of 2016 

After the FAA published the ANPRM, 

Congress enacted the FAA Extension, 

Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (2016 

Act),8 which reemphasized Congress’s 

prioritization of drug and alcohol 

programs for foreign repair station 

employees in section 2112. Specifically, 

section 2112 directed the FAA to (1) 

ensure that an NPRM pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) is published within 

90 days of the date of the enactment of 

the 2016 Act and (2) ensure that the 

rulemaking is finalized within a year of 

the NPRM publication.9 The NPRM was 

promulgated in accordance with such 

direction. 

4. FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 

After the FAA published the NPRM, 

Congress enacted the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024 (2024 

Act),10 which again reemphasized 

Congress’s prioritization of drug and 

alcohol programs for foreign repair 

station employees who perform 

maintenance on part 121 air carrier 

aircraft. Specifically, section 302(b) 

directed the FAA to issue a final rule 

within 18 months of the date of the 

enactment of the 2024 Act that carries 

out the requirements of section 2112(b) 

of the 2016 Act. 

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Testing Under 14 CFR Part 120 and 

49 CFR Part 40 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

fulfill Congress’s mandate by requiring 

certificated part 145 repair stations 

located outside the territory of the U.S. 

whose employees perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft to obtain and 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program, consistent with the applicable 

laws of the country in which the repair 

station is located.11 Specifically, the 

FAA proposed to require a part 145 

repair station located outside the 

territory of the U.S. to implement a drug 

and alcohol testing program meeting the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 

CFR part 120, covering employees who 

perform maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft. If a part 145 

repair station located outside the U.S. 

could not meet one or all requirements 

in 49 CFR part 40 (i.e., DOT’s 

requirements), the FAA noted that the 

part 145 repair station could apply for 

an exemption using the existing process 

described in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if 

a part 145 repair station located outside 

the U.S. could not meet one or all 

requirements in 14 CFR part 120 (i.e., 

the FAA’s requirements), the FAA 

proposed that the repair station may 

apply for a waiver in accordance with 

proposed 120.9. 

1. Application of 14 CFR Part 120 and 

49 CFR Parts 40 Through 145 

Certificated Repair Stations Located 

Outside the Territory of the United 

States (§§ 120.1, 120.123 and 120.227) 

To effectuate this testing framework, 

the FAA proposed three revisions to 14 

CFR 120.1, which are all adopted in this 

final rule. Specifically, § 120.1(c) will 

specify that paragraph (c) applies to 

those part 145 certificate holders located 

in the territory of the U.S. who elect to 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program under 14 CFR part 120. New 

paragraph (d) will expand the 

applicability of domestic 14 CFR part 

120 to all part 145 certificate holders 

outside the territory of the U.S. who 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft, 

effective on the compliance date of 

December 20, 2027. Finally, current 14 

CFR 120.1(d) is redesignated as 

paragraph (e). 

The FAA proposed adding specific 

instructions to affected part 145 repair 

stations outside the territory of the U.S. 

on how to meet the necessary 

requirements to implement a drug and 

alcohol testing program to 14 CFR 

120.117 (Drug Testing Program 

Requirements) and 120.225 (Alcohol 

Testing Program Requirements), which 

are adopted by this final rule. First, 

§ 120.117(a)(5) will specify that the 

requirements in that paragraph, which 

permit a repair station to elect to 

implement a testing program, are 

applicable only to part 145 certificate 

holders located inside the territory of 

the U.S. New § 120.117(a)(6) within the 

table will require a part 145 repair 

station located outside the territory of 

the U.S. whose employees perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance functions 

on part 121 air carrier aircraft to obtain 

an OpSpec A449 in their Operations 

Specifications by contacting the repair 

station’s Principal Maintenance 

Inspector. In turn, current 14 CFR 

120.117(a)(6) is redesignated as 

paragraph (a)(7). 

Similarly, this final rule revises 14 

CFR 120.117(c)(1) to specify the 

requirements in that paragraph are 

applicable only to part 145 certificate 

holders located inside the territory of 

the U.S. New paragraph (c)(2) will 

require the applicable repair station 

located outside the territory of the U.S. 

to (1) obtain an OpSpec A449 in their 

Operations Specifications by contacting 

the repair station’s Principal 

Maintenance Inspector, (2) implement 

the drug testing program no later than 

three years from the publication date of 

this final rule,12 and (3) meet the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103419 

more than three years after the publication date of 

the final rule must immediately comply with this 

requirement, regardless of whether they are starting 

operations as a new part 145 repair station. 

13This final rule implements the same nonsubstantive revisions described in footnote 11 to the 

alcohol testing program requirements set forth in 14 

CFR 120.225(c)(2). 

requirements of 14 CFR part 120, 

subpart E. In turn, current 14 CFR 

120.117(c)(2) is redesignated as 

paragraph (c)(3). 

This final rule adopts similar 

amendments to the implementation 

tables set forth in 14 CFR 120.225(a) and 

(c). Specifically, in 14 CFR 120.225(a), 

this final rule: revises the introductory 

language of paragraph (a)(5) to specify 

that paragraph is applicable to part 145 

certificate holders located inside the 

territory of the U.S.; adds new 

paragraph (a)(6) to include the 

requirements for a part 145 repair 

station located outside the territory of 

the U.S. that performs safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft; and redesignates current 

paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(7). 

Likewise, in 14 CFR 120.225(c), this 

final rule: revises paragraph (c)(1) to 

specify the requirements in that 

paragraph are applicable only to part 

145 certificate holders located inside the 

territory of the U.S.; adds new 

paragraph (c)(2) to require the 

applicable repair station located outside 

the territory of the U.S. to (1) obtain an 

OpSpec A449 in its Operations 

Specifications by contacting the repair 

station’s Principal Maintenance 

Inspector, (2) implement the alcohol 

testing program no later than three years 

from the publication date of this final 

rule,13 and (3) meet the requirements of 

14 CFR part 120, subpart E; and 

redesignates current paragraph (c)(2) as 

paragraph (c)(3). 

Relatedly, this final rule adopts minor 

grammatical changes to the headings of 

the table set forth in 14 CFR 120.117(c) 

and 14 CFR 120.225(c) and introductory 

text of 120.117(c)(1) and (3) and 

120.225(c)(1) and (3) to conform with 

the heading revisions. This final rule 

also adopts the correct introductory text 

in § 120.225(d), which is currently and 

inadvertently blank in the regulations. 

Finally, the FAA notes that, in light 

of the expanded flexibilities for waivers 

based on recognition, subsequently 

discussed in section IV.B of this 

preamble, this final rule makes 

technical corrections to the regulatory 

text in §§ 120.117 and 120.225. These 

revisions are discussed in that section. 

2. Conforming Amendments To 

Facilitate Drug and Alcohol Procedures 

Outside the United States (§§ 120.123 

and 120.227) 

This final rule adopts conforming 

amendments to 14 CFR 120.123 and 

120.227, which currently effectively 

restrict any drug and alcohol programs 

from implementation outside of the U.S. 

Specifically, this final rule adds 

language at the beginning of 14 CFR 

120.123(a), 120.123(a)(1), 120.123(b), 

120.227(a), 120.227(a)(1), and 

120.227(b) that would except persons 

under adopted 14 CFR 120.1(d) from 

applicability of those regulations 

restricting drug and alcohol testing 

outside the territory of the U.S. 

3. Exemptions and Waivers to Drug and 

Alcohol Program Requirements (120.5 

and 120.9) 

As previously discussed in the NPRM, 

the FAA seeks to avoid situations 

whereby the regulations of the FAA are 

inconsistent with laws in other 

sovereign countries and acknowledges 

there are many unique scenarios 

associated with the establishment and 

implementation of drug and alcohol 

testing programs outside of the U.S. 

Therefore, the FAA explained in the 

NPRM that a part 145 repair station 

could apply for an exemption from 49 

CFR part 40 using exemption processes 

existing therein. In turn, the FAA 

proposed to add language to 14 CFR 

120.5 to clarify that an employer’s drug 

and alcohol testing conducted pursuant 

to 14 CFR part 120 must comply with 

the procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 

40, to include any exemptions issued to 

that employer in accordance with 49 

CFR 40.7. To streamline and efficiently 

address potential international legal 

conflicts between foreign laws and the 

FAA’s own regulations, the FAA 

proposed to add waiver authority in 

new 14 CFR 120.9 to allow repair 

stations located outside of the U.S. to 

request waivers from specific provisions 

of 14 CFR part 120. The FAA maintains 

that the existing exemption process in 

49 CFR part 40 in tandem with the 

proposed waiver process in new 14 CFR 

120.9 would provide sufficient 

pathways to work with part 145 

certificated repair stations outside the 

territory of the U.S. to ensure these 

repair stations are not in violation of the 

laws of the country within which they 

are situated. Therefore, these provisions 

are adopted as proposed. 

4. Effective and Compliance Date 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require the applicable repair station 

located outside the territory of the U.S. 

to obtain an OpSpec A449 and 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program no later than one year from the 

effective date of the regulation (or, if a 

foreign repair station begins operations 

more than one year after the effective 

date of the regulation, implement a drug 

testing program no later than the date 

the repair station begins operations). 

The FAA received comments on the 

compliance date and reevaluated the 

amount of time that would be necessary 

to come into compliance with the 

regulations adopted by this final rule 

(see section IV.C.3 of this preamble for 

further discussion on the effective date 

comments). Commenters raised valuable 

implementation and operational 

concerns including time for a foreign 

repair station to prepare and submit 

waiver or exemption requests, time for 

the FAA to hire and train new 

employees, and time for the FAA and 

DOT to process a potentially large 

volume of waiver and/or exemption 

requests. With the introduction of 

expanded flexibilities for waivers based 

on recognition, the FAA expects a 

foreign government or an individual 

repair station seeking relief will need 

more time than proposed to prepare and 

submit a request. 

Based on these comments, the FAA 

has set the effective date of this rule to 

January 17, 2025 and will extend the 

delay for compliance for three years 

from the date of publication. 

Accordingly, the compliance date for 

affected foreign repair stations is 

December 20, 2027. The FAA has made 

changes to the regulatory text to ensure 

requests are received with sufficient 

time for the FAA to respond to requests 

for waivers. If a repair station’s existing 

program is not recognized pursuant to 

14 CFR 120.10 and it does not have a 

testing program that meets the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 120 and 49 

CFR part 40 or an approved waiver and/ 

or exemption for these parts, the repair 

station will be prohibited from 

performing safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft 

and the part 121 air carrier is prohibited 

from using the part 145 repair station to 

perform aircraft maintenance. The FAA 

encourages those seeking a waiver or an 

exemption to do so as early as possible. 

This is especially important during the 

final year before the compliance date, 

considering the large number of requests 

the FAA and DOT expect to receive 

during that period. 

The FAA acknowledges DOT has a 

separate process for granting 

exemptions from 49 CFR part 40. Under 

49 CFR part 5, DOT requires an 

exemption request to be submitted at 

least 60 days before the proposed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14These comments are summarized and 

adjudicated in section V.A of this preamble. 

15See 14 CFR 120.3, stating the purpose of part 

120 is to establish a program designed to help 

prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the 

use of prohibited drugs or the misuse of alcohol by 

employees who perform safety-sensitive functions 

in aviation. 

16The FAA recognizes that each country may 

present a range of drug laws or requirements, and 

may indicate testing of drugs that differ from those 

tested for within the U.S. The term ‘‘drugs’’ is 

intended to broadly address the category of drugs 

tested for by a foreign government or individual 

foreign repair station. 

effective date of the exemption, unless 

good cause is shown in that petition. 

Because FAA and DOT may need to 

coordinate on requests that involve a 

waiver and exemption from the same 

repair station, the FAA recommends 

foreign repair stations requiring an 

exemption make their request at least 90 

days before the compliance date of this 

rule, December 20, 2027, or 90 days 

before a repair station intends to 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft 

after the compliance date. 

B. Recognition of Existing Requirements 

or Testing Programs 

The FAA acknowledges that the relief 

in the proposed waiver program was 

insufficient and expanding the waiver 

eligibility is appropriate and consistent 

with the foundational intent of the 

Congressional mandate, particularly 

given the overwhelming number of 

comments the FAA received in response 

to the NPRM urging the FAA to, first, 

recognize the sovereignty of foreign 

nations and their individual legal 

contexts and, second, work more 

collaboratively with foreign country 

governments to achieve the ends of the 

legislation.14 To be clear, as previously 

discussed, this final rule maintains the 

option for a foreign repair station to 

implement an alcohol and drug testing 

program that meets the requirements of 

14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 as 

proposed in the NPRM. However, the 

final rule also expands on the 

flexibilities in the proposed waiver 

program in response to these public 

comments. To avoid potential 

duplication and unnecessary paperwork 

due to multiple waiver requests, the 

FAA is enabling direct engagements 

with foreign governments that represent 

the interests of foreign repair stations in 

their territories by establishing a process 

in new § 120.10 for foreign 

governments, on behalf of repair station 

operators within their territories, to 

obtain a waiver for those operators 

based on the Administrator’s 

recognition of existing requirements 

promulgated under the laws of the 

country as a compatible alternative 

subject to minimum criteria. Proposed 

waiver section 120.9 contained a 

requirement that a foreign repair station 

submit ‘‘[a] description of the 

alternative means that will be used to 

achieve the objectives of the provision 

that is the subject of the waiver.’’ Based 

on consideration of that provision and 

comments received, in § 120.10, the 

FAA is expanding the opportunity for 

foreign governments and foreign repair 

stations to rely on existing programs as 

demonstrations of the alternative means 

used to meet the objectives of part 120, 

provided certain criteria are met. 

Foreign governments, and foreign repair 

stations subject to foreign governance, 

are in the best position to assess and 

explain the laws imposed within their 

borders. The FAA anticipates foreign 

governments will pursue this waiver 

option to relieve individual foreign 

repair stations from the compliance 

burdens, unnecessary duplication, and 

potential conflicts between U.S. 

requirements and foreign laws where 

the U.S. and the foreign government 

share an objective of an alcohol- and 

drug-free workplace when performing 

safety-sensitive duties. However, if a 

foreign government chooses not to avail 

itself of this option, § 120.10 will 

provide an individual foreign repair 

station discretion to make its own 

waiver request based on recognition of 

an existing testing program that meets 

the criteria identified in the regulation. 

If an individual foreign repair station 

demonstrates its existing program 

contains the criteria outlined in 

§ 120.10, the Administrator will issue a 

waiver. 

Therefore, the FAA finds this waiver 

based on recognition will alleviate the 

burdens associated with the difficulties 

of identifying conflicts between foreign 

laws and the regulations. Specifically, 

this final rule adopts new § 120.10, 

Waiver based on recognition of a foreign 

government’s existing requirements or 

an existing testing program of a part 145 

repair station outside the territory of the 

U.S. This section will set forth the 

general requirements to obtain the 

waiver, including: the compatibility 

elements, process and procedures for 

the request, disposition of the request, 

effect and validity, and compliance 

measures. 

General. Section 120.10(a) will 

provide that a foreign government may 

request a waiver on behalf of repair 

stations within its territory based on the 

Administrator’s recognition of the 

country’s existing requirements (e.g., an 

existing testing regime) as a compatible 

alternative that meets the minimum key 

elements set out in § 120.10(b) 

(subsequently explained). In the event a 

foreign government chooses not to make 

a request on behalf of the repair stations 

in its country, § 120.10 also allows 

individual foreign repair stations to 

follow this process to similarly request 

a waiver based on recognition of an 

existing testing program by 

demonstrating the program is a 

compatible alternative that meets the 

key elements set out in the regulation. 

By requiring that a compatible 

alternative contain the criteria set forth 

in § 120.10(b), the FAA intends to 

ensure a foreign government’s existing 

requirements meet the same safety 

intent 15 of the FAA’s regulations 

regarding drug and alcohol testing for 

safety-sensitive employees, including 

those that perform maintenance on part 

121 air carrier aircraft. To note, if 

granted a waiver based on recognition of 

a compatible alternative, a foreign repair 

station will be required to comply with 

the recognized existing testing program. 

Compatibility. The criteria a foreign 

government’s existing requirements or 

testing program must contain to obtain 

a waiver are set forth in § 120.10(b) and 

include: 

—A testing protocol or established 

consequences used to detect or deter, 

or both, employees who are 

responsible for safety-sensitive 

maintenance on part 121 air carrier 

aircraft from misusing alcohol and 

using drugs.16

—An education or training program or 

materials that explain the impact and 

consequences of misusing alcohol and 

using drugs while performing safetysensitive maintenance. 

—The method used to rehabilitate and 

ensure that safety-sensitive 

maintenance employees who return to 

work on part 121 air carrier aircraft 

after a drug or alcohol test violation 

or consequence no longer misuse 

alcohol or use drugs. 

Similar to the proposed and finalized 

waiver element in § 120.9 that requires 

an applicant to provide ‘‘a description 

of the alternative means that will be 

used to achieve the objectives of the 

provision that is the subject of the 

waiver,’’ the FAA finds these criteria 

acceptable to ensure the proposed 

compatible alternative meets the same 

safety intent of the existing rules 

regarding drug and alcohol testing for 

safety-sensitive employees in the U.S., 

including those that perform 

maintenance on part 121 air carrier 

aircraft. The FAA acknowledges the 

laws and requirements of a country will 

impact how a government or foreign 

repair station meets these criteria. The 

following discussion on each element 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103421 

17See section V.E. of this preamble. 

18 14 CFR 120.115(c). 

19 14 CFR 120.223(a). 

20 14 CFR 120.109(e) and 120.217(e). 

may help a foreign government or an 

individual repair station demonstrate 

how its own requirements or testing 

program meet these elements. 

Effective testing protocols or 

established consequences. 

The circumstances under which a 

foreign repair station conducts testing or 

applies consequences for prohibited 

conduct are critical to detecting or 

deterring, or both, employees from 

misusing alcohol and using drugs while 

at work and performing safety-sensitive 

maintenance on part 121 air carrier 

aircraft. Testing may include preemployment, post-accident, reasonable 

suspicion, or random. Pre-employment 

drug testing acts as a gatekeeper and 

critical tool for identifying and keeping 

drug users out of safety-sensitive 

positions in the aviation industry. Postaccident drug and alcohol testing assists 

regulated employers in determining if 

drugs and/or alcohol are contributing 

factors to an accident. Employers 

conduct reasonable cause/suspicion 

drug and alcohol testing when there is 

credible evidence and direct 

observations by a trained supervisor 

indicating an employee may be using 

drugs or misusing alcohol while 

performing safety-sensitive duties. 

Random drug and alcohol testing 

contributes as an effective deterrent 

discouraging safety-sensitive employees 

from using drugs or alcohol while at 

work. These methods of testing have 

made a long-standing positive impact on 

the FAA’s domestic program, but the 

FAA notes they may not be the only 

means for detection and deterrence that 

ensures safety-sensitive maintenance 

personnel are not using drugs or 

misusing alcohol. Because laws 

permitting testing and circumstances 

may vary from country to country, this 

nonexhaustive list provides examples of 

the types of testing that may be 

recognized as part of a compatible 

alternative under § 120.10. 

If a foreign government or an 

individual repair station indicates it 

conducts testing, a request for waiver 

based on recognition of a compatible 

alternative must include a description of 

the testing protocols (see new 

§ 120.10(c)(1), detailing documentation 

necessary in a recognition package). As 

an example, the U.S. domestic testing 

program is standardized to ensure the 

integrity and identity of the specimen, 

and scientific accuracy of the test result. 

The testing must include strict 

specimen collection procedures to 

minimize the opportunity an individual 

would have to tamper with their 

specimen. Another system safeguard 

includes a regimented process to 

document the handling and storage of a 

specimen from the time it is collected 

until the time it is released to the 

facility that conducts the analysis. A 

properly documented collection process 

links donors to their specimen and 

provides proof of all specimen activity 

between collection and analysis. The 

FAA’s domestic testing protocols and 

specimen analysis are established in 49 

CFR part 40 and are consistent with the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Service’s laboratory protocols. The FAA 

acknowledges that testing protocols 

identified in a request for waiver based 

on recognition may depart from the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 40; 

however, requestors must thoroughly 

explain how those testing protocols 

ensure the integrity and identity of the 

specimen, and scientific accuracy of any 

test results. 

As noted, while testing is the most 

efficient method for detection and 

deterring employees from using drugs 

and misusing alcohol while performing 

safety-sensitive maintenance, it may not 

be the only means. As reiterated by 

commenters to the NPRM, established 

consequences for drug use or alcohol 

misuse can be an effective deterrent 

when testing is limited by the laws of 

the foreign country. For example, 

established consequences may include 

laws providing for the vigorous 

detection, prosecution, and punishment 

(e.g., imprisonment) of drug use or 

alcohol misuse. Several commenters 

identified such consequences and their 

deterrent effects.17 If a request for 

waiver based on recognition relies on 

established consequences, the FAA 

would anticipate receiving information 

from a foreign government or a foreign 

repair station demonstrating either its 

own testing systems and protocols or its 

laws and regulations limit or do not 

permit testing of the repair station’s 

safety-sensitive maintenance employees. 

An education or training program or 

materials. 

It is imperative to safety that safetysensitive maintenance employees 

understand the personal consequences 

of drug use and alcohol misuse and the 

professional consequences of failing to 

comply with the requirements of their 

employer’s drug and alcohol policies. In 

the U.S., for drug testing, an employer 

must conduct initial training for safetysensitive employees that includes the 

effects and consequences of drug use on 

personal health, safety, and work 

environment, as well as the 

manifestations and behavioral cues that 

may indicate drug use and abuse.18

Similarly, for alcohol testing, each 

employer must provide each employee 

with educational materials that explain 

the alcohol misuse requirements and the 

employer’s policies and procedures 

with respect to meeting those 

requirements.19 Employee training in 

the U.S. is a one-time requirement; 

however, the FAA believes it is a good 

practice to provide employees with new 

information when it changes and 

remind them of the requirements when 

performing covered functions. While the 

FAA does not offer its own training 

materials for employers to use, training 

and its materials can take many forms 

(e.g., virtual or in-person instruction, 

handouts). The FAA expects an 

acceptable training and education 

program required under § 120.10(b)(2) 

would ensure employees and their 

supervisors understand the safety risk of 

drug use and alcohol misuse, as well as 

the consequences of a drug and/or 

alcohol testing violation. The FAA 

understands a request for waiver based 

on recognition may not include the 

actual training or materials intended for 

use with safety-sensitive maintenance 

employees. However, the request must 

include what topics the training and/or 

materials will cover. 

Method to rehabilitate and ensure 

that safety-sensitive maintenance 

employees who return to work on part 

121 air carrier aircraft after a drug or 

alcohol test violation or consequence no 

longer misuse alcohol or use drugs. 

In a country where it is permissible 

for a safety-sensitive maintenance 

employee to return to work after using 

drugs or misusing alcohol, pursuant to 

§ 120.10(b)(3), a request for waiver 

based on recognition must include a 

process for treatment and/or education. 

Further evaluation or testing is critical 

to ensure the employee does not return 

to perform maintenance on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft and continue to use 

drugs and/or misuse alcohol. The FAA’s 

domestic program allows a safetysensitive employee to be evaluated by a 

qualified substance abuse professional 

(SAP) after failing a drug or alcohol test 

or refusing a test. Once the employee 

demonstrates successful compliance 

with the SAP’s treatment and/or 

education, the employee may return to 

performing safety-sensitive functions 

after passing a return-to-duty test 

conducted by their employer.20 After 

returning to work, the employer must 

conduct the unannounced follow-up 

testing for a minimum of one year or up 

to five years, depending on the SAP’s 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103422 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

21 49 CFR 40.307(d). 

22 14 CFR 120.111(e) and 120.221(b). 

directions.21 The return-to-duty process, 

including unannounced follow-up 

testing, functions to reduce the 

probability of recurrence through 

monitoring that employee to ensure the 

behavior does not repeat. If an employee 

fails another required drug or alcohol 

test or there is evidence of on-duty use, 

the safety-sensitive maintenance 

employee is permanently disqualified 

from performing maintenance for any 

employer regulated under 14 CFR part 

120.22

Because of the potential for repeated 

risk, the request for waiver based on 

recognition must describe or 

demonstrate what methods are used to 

ensure safety-sensitive maintenance 

employees who return to work on part 

121 air carrier aircraft after a drug or 

alcohol test violation or consequence 

are monitored to detect or deter, or both, 

repeat behavior. 

Requests for recognition (§ 120.10(c)). 

This section will require certain 

information to be included in a request 

for waiver based on recognition, 

including the name, title, address, email 

address, and telephone number of the 

primary person to be contacted 

regarding review of the request 

(§ 120.10(c)(1)(i)); documentation of the 

foreign government’s existing 

requirements demonstrating that the 

requirements contain the key elements 

of part 120 as described in paragraph 

(b), including, if appropriate, copies of 

applicable laws, regulations, and other 

requirements carrying the force of law 

(§ 120.10(c)(1)(ii)); any appropriate data, 

records, or supporting explanation for 

the Administrator to consider in 

determining whether the foreign 

government’s existing requirements 

contain those key elements 

(§ 120.10(c)(1)(iii)); and a statement that 

the requestor intends to notify the 

Administrator within 30 days of 

changing any key elements as described 

in paragraph (b) that form the basis of 

the Administrator’s recognition and 

describe those change(s) to the key 

elements (§ 120.10(c)(1)(iv)). Requests 

must be submitted to the FAA’s Office 

of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement 

Division (§ 120.10(c)(2)) at least 90 days 

before the waiver needs to take effect 

(§ 120.10(c)(3)). The FAA plans to 

update the website shortly after 

publication of the final rule to facilitate 

submission of information that a foreign 

government or foreign repair station 

needs to provide for FAA to consider a 

waiver based on recognition. 

Disposition (§ 120.10(d)). If a foreign 

government’s request complies with 

§ 120.10(c) and demonstrates its 

requirements meet the key elements 

described in § 120.10(b), the FAA will 

recognize the country’s requirements as 

a compatible alternative, pursuant to 

§ 120.10(d) and issue a waiver. To note, 

the FAA may request additional 

information from the foreign 

government or the foreign repair station 

to fully understand and evaluate the 

alternative testing program or 

consequence to ensure the information 

meets the requirements, and under 

§ 120.10(d)(1) will retain authority to 

make such inquiries. The FAA 

envisions such a request as a 

collaborative process with the requestor. 

Effect and Validity (§ 120.10(e)). A 

waiver based on recognition in the form 

of an FAA-issued letter will be provided 

to the requestor if the request is 

accepted. If the requestor is a foreign 

government, the waiver will apply to all 

FAA-certificated foreign repair stations 

that are in the territory of that country 

and subject to the recognized 

compatible alternative. The FAA 

expects the foreign government to 

distribute the FAA-issued letter to all 

foreign repair stations in its territory so 

each is aware of the waiver based on 

recognition and can maintain a copy. 

Pursuant to § 120.10(e)(2), the 

Administrator’s waiver based on 

recognition will remain valid so long as 

the compatible alternative retains the 

key elements that formed the basis of 

the Administrator’s decision. 

Compliance (§ 120.10(f)). If granted 

waiver based on recognition of a 

compatible alternative, a foreign 

government would ensure that foreign 

repair stations subject to its authority 

comply with the recognized existing 

requirements (i.e., follow the laws in 

their own country). As previously 

explained, the FAA will issue a letter 

indicating the waiver based on 

recognition to a government or a foreign 

repair station. Foreign repair stations 

that have obtained a waiver based on 

recognition of an existing testing 

program, or that are covered by a foreign 

government’s recognized compatible 

alternative pursuant to § 120.10(e)(1), 

must maintain the FAA-issued letter on 

file documenting the waiver in 

accordance with § 120.10(f)(1). The 

letter serves as documentation the 

certificated repair station’s safetysensitive maintenance employees are 

either subject to a testing protocol or 

established consequences, or both, 

deemed acceptable to the FAA 

Administrator and may be provided to 

a part 121 air carrier as program 

documentation of compliance. Finally, 

pursuant to § 120.10(f)(2), the FAA may 

modify, suspend, or withdraw its waiver 

based on recognition by the 

Administrator when it is no longer valid 

(e.g., if the recognized existing 

requirements are changed to remove key 

elements that were previously 

acceptable to the Administrator); when 

a foreign repair station fails to 

implement a testing program consistent 

with its recognition (e.g., if a repair 

station obtains recognition based on 

certain key elements but then fails to 

implement those elements in a testing 

program); or when the FAA determines 

that a foreign government or foreign 

repair station has not provided the 

notification within 30 days of changes 

to the key elements that form the basis 

of the Administrator’s recognition, as 

described in § 120.10(c)(1)(iv). 

Conforming Amendments. In the 

applicability section for part 120, 

§ 120.1, the final rule includes a new 

exception in § 120.1(d), which clarifies 

that § 120.5 and subparts E and F of 14 

CFR part 120 do not apply to part 145 

certificate holders outside the territory 

of the United States who perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft that have 

obtained a waiver based on recognition 

pursuant to § 120.10. 

In the tables in §§ 120.117(a) and (c) 

and §§ 120.225(a) and (c), the final rule 

clarifies that the information does not 

apply to a part 145 repair station that 

has obtained a waiver based on 

recognition by the Administrator of 

existing requirements or a testing 

protocol or established consequences (or 

both) pursuant to new § 120.10 as 

adopted by this final rule. The sections 

now more clearly explain that a foreign 

repair station that has not received a 

waiver based on recognition of existing 

requirements promulgated under the 

laws of their country must meet the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 120 as if it 

was an employer as defined in the 

regulation, and in accordance with any 

applicable waivers as described under 

§ 120.9 or any exemptions granted 

under 49 CFR 40.7. This final rule does 

not change the meaning of these 

sections from what was proposed; 

however, with the introduction of 

expanded flexibilities for waivers, the 

FAA found it necessary to clarify that 

this language will not apply to foreign 

repair stations that are covered under a 

waiver based on recognition by the 

Administrator issued pursuant to 14 

CFR 120.10. 

V. Responses to Comments 

The NPRM published on December 7, 

2023, with the original comment period 

closing on February 5, 2024. On January 

16, 2024, a coalition of 15 organizations 

requested to extend the comment period 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103423 

23 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certificated Repair 

Station Employees Located Outside of the United 

States; NPRM extension of comment period, 89 FR 

4584 (Jan. 26, 2024). 

24ARSA and Fortner Engineering & 

Manufacturing, Inc. submitted nearly identical 

comments with no substantive differences. Because 

these comments originated with ARSA, the final 

rule refers to these separate submissions as ARSA’s 

comments. 

25Sharp Aviation K Inc provided two comments 

on the NPRM. 

an additional 90 days. In response, the 

FAA extended the comment period by 

an additional 60 days to April 5, 2024.23

This extension provided a total of one 

hundred twenty (120) days for comment 

submission. 

The FAA received 74 comment 

submissions in response to the NPRM 

during the 120-day comment period, 

including two requests for an extension 

of the comment period and two out-ofscope comments. Of the 70 remaining 

comments germane to the rulemaking, 

17 generally supported the NPRM, 40 

generally opposed the NPRM, and 13 

stated no position but provided their 

comments and concerns or asked 

questions about the proposal. These 

comments addressed multiple aspects of 

the proposal and are further 

summarized alongside the FAA’s 

responses in the sections that follow. 

The 17 supporting commenters 

included two airline mechanics unions 

(International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

(Teamsters) and Transportation Trades 

Department, AFL–CIO (TTD)), a pilots’ 

union (Allied Pilots Association (APA)), 

a transit employee union (Transport 

Workers Union of America (TWU)), a 

trade association (National Drug & 

Alcohol Screening Association 

(NDASA)), a Substance Abuse 

Professional (SAP) Directory service 

(SAPList), a software provider (Nexus 

33 Group LLC), and 10 individuals. 

The 40 opposing commenters 

included thirteen foreign repair stations 

(Air New Zealand Limited, Chromalloy, 

Excel Aerospace Pte, HAECO 

Component Overhaul, Hong Kong Aero 

Engine Services Limited, IHI 

Corporation, JAL Engineering Company 

Limited, MTU Maintenance Zhuhai, 

Panasonic Avionics Corp-Line, Taikoo 

Shandong Aircraft Engineering Co., 

Taikoo Xiamen Aircraft Engineering Co., 

Taikoo Xiamen Landing Gear Services, 

and Elbe Flugzeugwerke), five trade 

associations (Aeronautical Repair 

Station Association (ARSA), Airlines for 

America (A4A), Cargo Airline 

Association (CAA), General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 

and Regional Airline Association 

(RAA)), four airline manufacturers 

(AIRBUS Commercial Aircraft, The 

Boeing Company, Boeing Research and 

Technology, and GE Aerospace), three 

foreign trade associations (Airlines for 

Europe (A4E), Bundesverband der 

Deutschen Luft- und 

Raumfahrtindustrie e.V./German 

Aerospace Industries Association 

(BDLI), and International Air Transport 

Association (IATA)), three foreign 

airlines (Deutsche Lufthansa AG, EL AL 

Israel Airlines, and Qantas Airways 

Limited), two foreign governmental 

aviation organizations (European 

Commission Directorate General for 

Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) and 

UK Department for Transport (UK 

DFT)), one charter airline (Capital City 

Jet Center), one maintenance provider 

(MRO Holdings, Inc.), one manufacturer 

(MOOG Inc.), one U.S. repair station 

(Fortner Engineering & Manufacturing, 

Inc.),24 and six individuals. 

The 13 commenters that did not state 

an overt position on the NPRM included 

seven foreign repair stations (Airfoil 

Services, Goodrich THY TEKNI ̇K 

SERVI ̇S MERKEZI ̇ LTD. S ̧TI ̇, Honeywell 

do Brasil, Seman Peru, Sharp Aviation 

K Inc,25 ST Engineering Aerospace 

Services Company, and Tamagawa Aero 

Systems), one employment screening 

services provider (New Era Drug 

Testing), one SAP service provider 

(American Substance Abuse 

Professional, Inc.), and three 

individuals. 

The following sections summarize 

and respond to comments received on 

the NPRM. 

A. Sovereignty of Other Nations and 

Existing Programs 

Thirty-one commenters, including 

ARSA, Air New Zealand Limited, 

Airbus Commercial Aircraft, A4A, A4E, 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG, EL AL Israel 

Airlines Ltd., GE Aerospace, GAMA, 

BDLI, IATA, Qantas Airlines, The 

Boeing Company, and UK DFT, raised 

the issue of national sovereignty as a 

basis for their opposition to the NPRM. 

These commenters generally disagreed 

with the NPRM’s approach to 

implementing the statutory mandate. 

Commenters including A4A, RAA, 

IATA, ARSA, and EL AL Israel Airlines 

commented that the proposal’s drug and 

alcohol testing program requirement 

may conflict or be inconsistent with the 

laws of other sovereign nations. In their 

view, the proposal failed to consider 

these pre-existing, complex, and diverse 

legal contexts that operate outside the 

United States. Commenters provided 

numerous examples of conflicts 

between various foreign laws and the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 

CFR part 120, which are discussed in 

section IV.D of this preamble. These 

commenters argued that the statutory 

mandate prohibits the FAA from 

proposing regulations on persons 

outside the territory of the U.S. that 

would facially conflict with the laws of 

sovereign nations. They also argued that 

the statute does not permit the FAA to 

shift the burden of avoiding 

inconsistencies with foreign laws to the 

part 145 repair stations that would need 

to seek waivers or exemptions. 

A4A and IATA further encouraged the 

FAA to directly engage with foreign 

governments that have different 

methods of deterring drug and alcohol 

use and abuse that may accomplish the 

FAA’s objectives by other means, stating 

the imposition of testing obligations in 

some countries may run contrary to, or 

be unnecessary in consideration of, the 

country’s cultural context and its 

various laws. A4A commented the FAA 

should establish a process through 

which a foreign repair station may 

request that the U.S. government and 

the respective government of the repair 

station cooperate and come to an 

agreement to ensure subject repair 

stations in those countries be compliant 

with all illicit drug and alcohol abuse 

laws, both foreign and domestic. Airbus 

also commented that U.S. authorities 

should issue exemptions and waivers at 

the level of each country without 

involving each part 145 certificated 

repair station to minimize the 

administrative burden and associated 

costs. Similarly, ARSA suggested the 

FAA find another country’s laws 

acceptable with no further action if the 

country has an existing program or has 

harsh laws or other deterrents for drug 

and alcohol use. Capital City Jet Center 

in Canada also stated the FAA should 

either work to develop a standard or 

require proof a repair station is covered 

by their governing country’s existing 

testing program. Given the variations in 

these laws from country to country, 

commenters including The Boeing 

Company generally agreed that a ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ approach would be 

impossible to implement and enforce, 

and that FAA should instead accept 

local testing regimes and defer to local 

authorities. To summarize, these 

commenters urged the FAA to consider 

accepting a government’s determination 

of compliance and acceptability. 

Several commenters, including A4A, 

ARSA, and IATA, suggested that the 

proposal would shift the burden of 

understanding and complying with 

foreign laws and regulations from the 

FAA to foreign citizens, which would 

violate national sovereignty. 

Specifically, ARSA stated, ‘‘the 

congressional directive was clear: the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103424 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

rule on its face cannot conflict with a 

sovereign nation’s laws. Placing the 

burden on a certificate holder to prove 

its laws conflict with the proposed 

aviation safety regulations is an 

unacceptable application of legislative 

plain language.’’ Commenters further 

argued that the public is unable to 

assess the legal ramifications of 

extending 14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR 

part 40 beyond the boundaries of the 

U.S., and that foreign repair station and 

maintenance facility owners are 

citizens, not international legal experts 

capable of competently seeking waivers 

and exemptions from the regulations. 

Commenters stated that placing this 

burden on a certificate holder to prove 

its laws conflict with the proposal is an 

unacceptable application of legislative 

plain language. They would like to see 

the government make the determination 

of compliance and acceptability, not the 

foreign citizen. 

Conversely, the Teamsters and APA, 

who supported the rule as proposed, 

stated the FAA should not expand the 

NPRM to allow a foreign repair station 

to present an existing or equivalent 

testing program to meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule. The 

Teamsters stated DOT’s reliance on 

existing standards to address the use of 

alcohol and controlled substances for 

domestic covered employees 

necessitates an identical application for 

any further employees entered in the 

testing program. Another supporting 

commenter, NDASA, agreed the 

requirements for foreign repair stations 

should mirror those drug and alcohol 

programs in the United States. They 

further stated already existing testing 

programs and advances in international 

testing in the 30 years since the FAA 

originally proposed testing outside of 

the U.S. will make this rulemaking 

easier to implement. 

The FAA disagrees that the NPRM’s 

approach fails to consider the legal 

contexts of foreign nations, resulting in 

conflict and inconsistency. Section 

44733(d)(2) explicitly required the 

proposed rule requiring an alcohol and 

controlled substances testing program 

determined acceptable by the 

Administrator to be promulgated 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located. The FAA maintains that the 

proposed rule considered legal contexts 

of foreign nations because the FAA 

proposed a pathway under which a 

foreign repair station could be 

consistent with both the FAA drug and 

alcohol testing regulations and the laws 

of the country. Specifically, the FAA 

proposed (and this final rule adopts) a 

pathway that would allow a foreign 

repair station to apply for exemptions 

and waivers under 49 CFR part 40 and 

14 CFR part 120, respectively, to 

facilitate compliance with the 

consistency requirement. Therefore, the 

FAA maintains that this rulemaking 

does not, as commenters suggested, 

impose rigid requirements without 

regard to local legal contexts. Nor does 

the NPRM’s approach improperly 

burden the owners of foreign repair 

stations with responsibility for 

understanding and complying with FAA 

regulations. Affected foreign repair 

stations must hold an FAA-issued part 

145 certificate to be subject to the 

regulations promulgated in this rule. 

Accordingly, these foreign repair 

stations must already understand and 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

part 145 concerning aircraft 

maintenance, repair, and operation 

organizations. The FAA separately 

addresses commenters’ arguments 

concerning the burdens of seeking 

waivers and exemptions below. 

However, the FAA acknowledges each 

country impacted by this rule may have 

existing testing protocols or 

consequences under local laws that 

could meet the safety intent of the 

FAA’s domestic requirements to detect 

or deter, or both, employees who are 

responsible for safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions from misusing 

alcohol and using drugs. 

Further, the FAA acknowledges the 

discrepancy between legal contexts of a 

foreign country and FAA regulations, 

some of which may be so complex that 

a singular means of compliance may not 

be adequately covered solely by that 

proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, as 

previously discussed, this final rule 

includes more flexible waivers whereby 

a foreign government, on behalf of its 

repair station operators within its 

territory, may seek a waiver based on 

recognition of the foreign government’s 

existing requirements or testing 

program. As explained, the waiver is 

also available to an individual foreign 

repair station, which may seek 

recognition of an existing testing 

program promulgated under the laws of 

the country or present consequences 

under local laws as a compatible 

alternative that demonstrate it meets the 

intent of the regulation. Section IV.B of 

this preamble discussed this waiver 

option, including the necessary criteria 

to demonstrate a testing program or 

consequences that meet the intent of the 

existing rules regarding drug and 

alcohol testing for safety-sensitive 

employees and the procedures to seek 

such recognition. The FAA finds that 

this more flexible waiver option 

comprehensively considers the unique 

laws and sovereignty of other countries 

and responds to commenters’ concerns 

of this nature. 

B. Final Rule Effective and Compliance 

Date 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require the applicable repair station 

located outside the territory of the U.S. 

to obtain an OpSpec A449 and 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program no later than one year from the 

effective date of the regulation (or, if a 

foreign repair station begins operations 

more than one year after the effective 

date of the regulation, implement a drug 

testing program no later than the date 

the repair station begins operations). 

A4A requested the compliance date of 

this final rule should be held in 

abeyance for repair stations seeking 

waivers or exemptions, regardless of 

whether the FAA adopts the option for 

a government to make a request on 

behalf of its repair stations. If a 

government makes the request on behalf 

of its repair stations, A4A stated the 

compliance date of the regulations 

should be held in abeyance in a country 

until a final agreement has been made 

and becomes effective. They argued this 

would help avoid a scenario where one 

repair station in a country must comply 

with the FAA testing requirements 

where another does not because they are 

waiting on a decision, avoids requiring 

a repair station to set up intermittent 

costly processes that must later be 

revised to conform to the agreement, 

and avoids a situation where a repair 

station may be out of compliance with 

a local or FAA regulation while waiting 

on a pending request, which may put 

the repair station in difficult contractual 

or insurance policy non-compliance 

situations. For similar reasons, A4A 

requested the FAA fully adhere to its 

statutory limitation through a waiver/ 

exemption process that ensures all 

inconsistencies are addressed before it 

imposes its program on foreign repair 

stations. They stated the one-year delay 

in compliance date proposed is based 

on no supporting data the FAA and 

DOT have the resources or ability to 

adjudicate hundreds to thousands of 

requests. CAA also had concerns with 

the waiver process, stating that the FAA 

needs to properly address whether the 

proposed rule’s final compliance date 

will be substantially far enough in the 

future to accommodate the hundreds of 

exemption requests, and the agency 

should not arbitrarily enforce the 

regulations while exemption 

applications are pending or delayed at 

the hands of the agency. 

The FAA acknowledges the concern 

regarding the rule’s compliance date 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103425 

and agrees with commenters that more 

time is needed to implement the 

requirements of this rule. With the 

introduction of waivers based on 

recognition of the foreign government’s 

existing requirements or testing 

program, the FAA expects a foreign 

government or an individual repair 

station seeking relief will need 

sufficient time to prepare and submit a 

request, and the FAA and DOT will 

need additional time to create a new 

FAA International Compliance and 

Enforcement Branch, and to process 

waiver and exemption requests. The 

FAA disagrees, however, that 

compliance with these regulations by a 

foreign repair station should be held in 

abeyance if their request for a waiver 

from 14 CFR part 120 is pending with 

the FAA, or if their request for an 

exemption is pending with DOT. The 

extended three-year compliance date 

and the requirement to make a request 

at least 90 days before a waiver is 

needed will provide sufficient time to 

make and/or respond to requests made 

pursuant to §§ 120.9 and 120.10, and no 

abeyance will be necessary. 

As discussed in section IV.A of this 

preamble, the FAA has set the effective 

date of this rule to January 17, 2025 and 

set the compliance date to December 20, 

2027. The FAA has made changes to the 

regulatory text to ensure requests are 

received with sufficient time to respond 

to requests for waivers requested 

pursuant to §§ 120.9 and 120.10. 

C. Government Resources 

Commenters including A4A, A4E, 

ARSA, CAA, EL AL Airlines, and IHI 

expressed concern that the DOT and the 

FAA do not have the ability to manage 

the number of waivers and exemptions 

submitted with their own resources, or 

to respond to requests in a timely 

manner. Further, these commenters 

explained that delays in obtaining 

waivers and exemptions could increase 

the costs of implementing a testing 

program. Specifically, A4A stated their 

concern the FAA and DOT do not have 

the expertise and ability to fully 

adjudicate the impact of foreign laws 

and inconsistency with the FAA 

program and would like the FAA to 

recognize it will give full deference to 

the determination of foreign authorities 

regarding the inconsistency of laws for 

the purpose of compliance with FAA’s 

program. 

The FAA acknowledges commenters’ 

concerns regarding the burden on the 

FAA and DOT because of waiver and 

exemption requests associated with this 

rule. In response to concerns regarding 

burden and for reasons discussed above, 

the FAA has expanded waiver eligibility 

allowing a foreign government, on 

behalf of the repair stations in its 

country, or an individual foreign repair 

station to provide a written request for 

a waiver based on recognition of an 

existing testing program promulgated 

under the laws of the country as a 

compatible alternative that meets the 

minimum key elements set out in the 

regulation. The FAA finds this 

expansion of the waiver option will 

sufficiently recognize deference to 

foreign governments, their sovereignty, 

and their existing laws and 

requirements as an acceptable means of 

ensuring an alcohol and drug-free 

workplace. The FAA expects the 

expanded waiver options to reduce the 

burden on foreign citizens and on FAA 

and DOT by reducing the number of 

waivers and exemptions received. 

D. Specific Conflicts With Foreign Laws 

Commenters including ARSA, Air 

New Zealand Limited, Airbus 

Commercial Aircraft, A4A, A4E, 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG, EL AL Israel 

Airlines Ltd., GE Aerospace, GAMA, 

BDLI, IATA, Qantas Airlines, The 

Boeing Company, DG MOVE, UK DFT, 

and individuals specifically raised 

issues of labor and employment laws, 

human rights laws, union policies and 

laws protecting the privacy rights of 

employees. Commenters also noted that 

in countries that already permit some 

type of drug and alcohol testing, the 

existing methodologies vary greatly. 

The FAA received comments 

regarding existing laws that may conflict 

with the proposed rule in several 

countries including the United 

Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, the 

European Union, China, Singapore, 

Peru, and Japan. GE Aerospace provided 

a copy of their comments submitted to 

the ANPRM, which contained some 

current regulatory requirements for 

Hungary, Korea, Singapore, the UK, 

China, Australia, and Brazil. 

Chile. An individual commented it is 

necessary to verify the impact of the 

policy according to the local law in 

Chile and that the policy must not 

conflict with the employments 

contracts, employment legislation, or 

labor legislation. 

China. The FAA received 6 comments 

from Chinese repair stations HAECO 

Component Overhaul Xiamen Ltd., 

Hong Kong Aero Engine Services 

Limited, MTU Maintenance Zhuhai, 

Taikoo Xiamen Aircraft Engineering Co. 

Ltd, Taikoo Xiamen Landing Gear 

Services Co. Ltd, and Taikoo Shandong 

Aircraft Engineering Co., Ltd. These 

repair stations, along with The Boeing 

Company, stated the People’s Republic 

of China has very strict management 

and control of the illegal use of drugs, 

forbidding any misuse of prohibited 

drugs. Taikoo Shandong Aircraft 

Engineering Co., Ltd. noted that the 

laws of the People’s Republic of China 

cover all the prohibited drugs listed in 

49 CFR part 40. Commenters also stated 

that drug testing is not commonly 

requested by a business company in 

China and can only be conducted by 

police when drug use is suspected or 

when an individual is in recovery from 

drug use. The repair stations stated that 

they instead have internal procedures 

that effectively control alcohol misuse, 

including training/education and daily 

checks. 

EU. DG MOVE commented that the 

EU has robust safety management 

provisions in place for maintenance 

stations and a verifiable track record 

demonstrating that drug and alcohol 

abuse do not represent a safety concern 

requiring further regulatory action. The 

issue is covered by EU aviation safety 

regulations, in addition to EU Member 

States’ employment laws. DG MOVE 

stated that since 2003 and the adoption 

and application of EU legislation 

pertaining to the continuing 

airworthiness of aircraft and 

aeronautical products, parts and 

appliances, and on the approval of 

organizations and personnel involved in 

these tasks, all EASA part 145 

maintenance organizations are required 

to establish a Safety and Quality policy 

and a compliance monitoring system. 

Moreover, since December 2022 (date of 

applicability of Commission 

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/ 

19632), all EASA part 145 maintenance 

organizations are required to establish a 

safety management system compliant 

with International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Annex 19 

provisions. Such policy mandates the 

conduct of random independent audits 

of all aspects of the organization ability 

to carry out maintenance to the required 

standard, including checks of all 

maintenance personnel’s training and 

performance in relation to human factor 

issues, which could influence their 

ability to safely and properly exercise 

their tasks, explicitly including the 

issue of abuse of alcohol or drugs. DG 

MOVE states the new burdensome 

control measures implied by the 

proposed rule are in no way justified 

with regard to the EU and its Member 

States. DG MOVE also pointed to the 

existing U.S.-EU BASA, which is 

addressed in section V.G of this 

preamble. 

Germany. The BDLI and Lufthansa 

Group stated random testing for drugs 

and alcohol is not compatible with the 

laws in Germany. A German foreign 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103426 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

repair station, Elbe Flugzeugwerke 

GmbH, commented that a general testing 

of alcohol and drugs without concrete 

suspicion is not permitted under 

German local law and that the local 

personal rights of the employee are in 

contradiction with the general 

requirement for testing, therefore, this 

rule cannot be implemented in 

Germany. 

Ireland. MOOG Inc. commented that, 

legally, organizations in Ireland cannot 

force staff to undergo mandatory 

workplace drug testing or alcohol 

consumption exams and to do so could 

cause controversy. MOOG Inc. also 

mentioned privacy issues and human 

rights conflicts because presently there 

is no requirement in the Safety Health 

and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 clause 

13(1)(c), which allows regulations to be 

made for testing for intoxicants. 

Israel. EL AL Israel Airlines (EL AL) 

commented that Israeli law prohibits 

companies from performing random 

drug and alcohol testing on employees, 

though local law provides for testing 

based on suspicion or need. EL AL 

further asserted that Israeli law codifies 

a person’s right to bodily autonomy and 

privacy and prohibits compelled 

medical examinations without a 

person’s consent. EL AL also suggested 

that Israeli data privacy laws may deem 

regular and random drug and alcohol 

testing as illegal and illegitimate spying 

and as a violation of privacy. EL AL 

stated retaining the required consent for 

processing of Personal Information is a 

struggle for the airline and, even if 

obtained may not withstand 

proportionality tests as there may be 

other disciplinary measures with a 

lesser effect on the employee’s privacy. 

Japan. The FAA received comments 

from repair stations in Japan, including 

Panasonic Avionics Corp-Line 

Maintenance, who stated labor laws in 

Japan do not allow companies to 

conduct drug investigations. Another 

commenter, JAL Engineering Company 

Limited, stated the strict prohibition of 

drugs in Japan and its enforcement 

means the prevalence of drug use among 

the Japanese population is significantly 

lower than in the United States and 

Europe. The commenter also stated the 

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau mandates 

alcohol testing for maintenance 

personnel before the start of their shifts. 

Another Japanese repair station, IHI 

Corporation, commented that alcohol 

testing may be feasible, but drug testing 

causes concerns with the protection of 

personal information and consent to 

test. They also stated drug possession 

and its use are illegal in Japan and the 

consequences are expected to achieve 

the goal of the implementation of the 

drug testing rule. 

Mexico. Chromalloy, a repair station 

located in Mexico, stated the aviation 

laws in Mexico already include an 

alcohol and drugs testing as part of the 

medical examination required to obtain/ 

renew aviation maintenance license and 

this medical examination is in 

accordance with ICAO 

recommendations. Furthermore, the 

commenter indicated under Article 47 

of Mexico’s Federal Labor Law, 

employees are prohibited from arriving 

at work intoxicated or under the 

influence of a narcotic or drug (with 

medical exception). 

Peru. Seman Peru Sac, a foreign repair 

station, stated some aspects of the 

proposed rule are not in accordance 

with the reality of the country. For 

example, they stated there is no 

substantial consumption rate of 

amphetamines, heroin, and opioids in 

Peru. The most widely used drugs are 

cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol. They 

also stated drug testing at their location 

has been always negative because they 

follow the Advisory Circular DGAC 

Peru 91.010–2019, requiring 

unannounced detection of 10% of 

personnel once a year. 

Singapore. The FAA received a 

comment from Excel Aerospace in 

Singapore which stated Singapore has 

extremely strict drug and alcohol 

regulations. 

Tu ̈rkiye. A repair station in Tu ̈rkiye, 

GOODRICH THY TEKNI ̇K SERVI ̇S 

MERKEZI ̇ LTD. S ̧TI ̇, commented that 

drug and alcohol testing can only be 

requested if an individual is under the 

influence within the workplace or there 

is a suspicion, or if the nature of the job 

requires testing (e.g., drivers). They also 

stated employees who are notified of 

testing must be informed about the 

method, scope, and purpose of the test, 

and personal data must be protected, 

and explicit consent must be given 

before an employer allows employees to 

undergo alcohol and drug tests. 

United Kingdom (UK). The UK DFT 

commented that the NPRM contains 

elements that overlap with domestic UK 

provisions, including the Railways and 

Transport Safety Act 2003 and the 

Employment Rights Act 1996. UK DFT 

stated aircraft maintenance personnel 

are required by the terms of their 

licenses and those of their organizations 

not to work whilst under the influence 

of drugs or alcohol. The Railways and 

Transport Safety Act 2003 sets out 

prescribed limits for people involved in 

aviation activities, including flight crew, 

ground crew and air traffic controllers. 

The Act does not contain provisions 

giving the power to conduct random 

drug and/or alcohol testing without the 

consent of the test subject, which UK 

DFT states is contrary to the NPRM and 

has the potential to impose on UK 

sovereignty. UK DFT further states U.S. 

employment law is different from UK 

employment law, which is set out in the 

Employment Rights Act 1996. UK DFT 

stated the requirement of a program that 

complies with extremely detailed and 

onerous criteria that can be applied to 

U.S. repair stations presents practical 

difficulties if implemented on UK repair 

stations. It is likely to present problems 

in some cases of a clash between the 

requirements of the NPRM and UK 

domestic law on unfair dismissal under 

the Employment Rights Act 1996. UK 

DFT further discussed its responsibility 

for the British Overseas Territories, 

which do not have the same provisions 

as those contained in the Railways and 

Transport Safety Act 2003 or the 

Employment Rights Act 1996 but do 

have robust Employment Laws and 

regulatory enforcement mechanisms in 

place, including suspension and/or 

revocation of any license, certificate, or 

approval, within each individual 

Territories’ own legal framework. UK 

DFT stated the measures suggested in 

the NPRM are unnecessary and 

disproportionately burdensome with the 

potential to encroach on UK 

sovereignty. 

The FAA acknowledges each country 

impacted by this rule may have different 

laws on labor, employment, privacy, 

etc., which the repair stations in that 

country must follow. The FAA 

appreciates the information provided by 

other countries and individual foreign 

repair stations to help illustrate this 

point. As described previously, the FAA 

has expanded waiver eligibility to a 

foreign government, on behalf of its 

repair station operators within its 

territory, and the individual repair 

stations. This waiver based on 

recognition allows a foreign government 

or an individual repair station to 

provide the FAA with a written request 

for waiver based on recognition of an 

existing testing program or 

consequences promulgated under the 

laws of the country that meets the 

minimum criteria set forth in new 

§ 120.10. Absent a waiver based on 

recognition, the foreign repair stations 

must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 

part 120 and 49 CFR part 40, with the 

option to request a waiver or exemption 

for those discrete regulations that may 

present an obstacle. 

E. Human Rights Concerns 

GAMA commented that the rule raises 

human rights concerns because it may 

result in outcomes inconsistent with 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103427 

26Proposed § 120.9(b)(5) and (6). 

widely recognized norms of justice. 

Specifically, GAMA stated that foreign 

governments may use a positive test 

result obtained through a repair station’s 

drug and alcohol testing program to 

prosecute a station employee. GAMA 

further asserted that station employees 

in some countries may face criminal 

conviction and excessive punishment, 

up to and including capital punishment, 

due to a test required under this rule. 

ARSA similarly commented that some 

countries impose harsh penalties for 

alcohol and drug use. CAA raised a 

concern of risks to employees of foreign 

repair stations where the host country’s 

strict drug use laws carry severe 

punishments, and CAA questioned 

whether compliance with the rule 

would cause difficulty in retaining and 

hiring employees who fear criminal 

sanctions for their drug use. 

The FAA acknowledges these 

concerns about the potential human 

rights implications of the rule’s testing 

requirements. However, Congress has 

directed the FAA to promulgate a rule 

requiring that foreign repair stations 

ensure employees who perform safetysensitive maintenance on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft are subject to a drug and 

alcohol testing program. Further, 

GAMA’s concern about countries’ 

ability to use positive tests resulting 

from this rule’s requirements to obtain 

convictions and to impose excessive 

punishments is difficult to assess 

without additional information. These 

consequences turn on a country’s laws, 

its criminal justice system, prosecutorial 

decision-making and discretion within 

that system, and several other factors 

that are beyond the FAA’s 

understanding. The FAA acknowledges 

that certain safety-sensitive 

maintenance employees that engage in 

illegal drug use or alcohol misuse may 

be deterred from employment with a 

foreign repair station if testing pursuant 

to the final rule would uncover such 

conduct. The FAA lacks sufficient 

information to assess the extent of 

impacts on retention and hiring 

associated with an employee’s fear of 

being sanctioned for drug use by their 

employer’s government. In cases where 

a foreign government receives a waiver 

based on recognition of existing 

requirements, this final rule would not 

impose additional testing or 

requirements beyond what the foreign 

government requires. 

GAMA also asked the FAA to 

reconsider issuing the rule if it could 

result in harsh, cruel, or unusual 

punishments in other countries. GAMA 

implored the FAA to, at a minimum, 

work with the U.S. Department of State 

or other appropriate government 

agencies to reduce the likelihood of 

inhumane outcomes. The FAA notes 

that the waiver based on recognition 

option provided in the final rule would 

not impose additional testing or 

requirements beyond what the foreign 

government requires. Furthermore, the 

waiver based on recognition will permit 

countries and individual repair stations 

to seek recognition of a foreign 

government’s existing requirements or 

testing program that may mitigate 

certain downstream risks associated 

with testing for drug use and alcohol 

misuse. The FAA notes that it regularly 

engages in inter-agency collaboration, 

such as with the U.S. Department of 

State, and would continue to do so to 

the extent any specific concerns are 

raised in the implementation of this 

rule. 

F. Waivers and Exemptions 

1. Waiver Burdens 

ARSA asked the FAA to consider 

offering a blanket waiver from the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 120 in 

some circumstances, including where a 

foreign government has similar drug and 

alcohol testing requirements. ARSA 

stated that compliance with 49 CFR part 

40 would not be required if the FAA 

issued a blanket waiver to 14 CFR part 

120. The Teamsters, a supporting 

commenter, explained that the FAA has 

satisfied these concerns via the 

proposed waiver and exemption 

process. 

The FAA disagrees that the proposed 

regulations improperly burden foreign 

repair stations that would be subject to 

the rule. As explained previously, the 

regulations as proposed comply with 49 

U.S.C. 44733(d)(2): they require the 

relevant foreign repair stations to 

implement a testing program; they 

establish acceptable baseline 

requirements for a testing program; and 

they include mechanisms for 

compliance and adaptation, specifically 

through waivers and exemptions, to 

address inconsistencies with local laws. 

The FAA reasonably determined that 

the regulated community is best situated 

to seek relief from 49 CFR part 40 and 

14 CFR part 120 to ensure consistency 

with local laws, which led the FAA to 

expand the waiver opportunities, as 

previously discussed in this final rule. 

However, the FAA finds seeking such 

relief may require more time than the 

NPRM’s proposed one-year 

implementation period. Accordingly, 

the FAA will set the effective date to 30 

days while extending the compliance 

date to three years to provide existing 

foreign repair stations up to three years 

to comply with the pathways adopted 

by this final rule. These measures 

provide foreign repair stations with 

sufficient time and flexibility to 

implement an appropriate drug and 

alcohol testing program consistent with 

any waivers. Additional explanation for 

the extension of the compliance date of 

the rule is included in sections IV.A and 

V.B. 

2. Waiver Standard and Requirements 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about the NPRM’s proposed processes 

and applicable standards for issuing 

waivers and exemptions. A4A stated the 

proposed processes for issuance of 

waivers and exemptions is ambiguous 

and vague because it does not offer a 

standard under which the FAA will 

approve a waiver. A4A alleged that the 

process is therefore arbitrary and 

capricious, and it requested the FAA 

explain the process and standards for 

FAA waivers and DOT exemptions and 

give the public an opportunity to 

comment on the standards. The 

Lufthansa Group commented that 

waivers and exemptions would be 

reviewed through an unspecified 

process and rely on an individual’s 

judgment rather than a particular 

standard. ARSA similarly commented 

that the NPRM failed to provide an 

objective standard for obtaining an 

exemption or waiver. 

A4A stated the FAA asks for more 

than what Congress required within the 

waiver request process (i.e., the 

‘‘reasons why granting the waiver would 

not adversely affect the prevention of 

accidents and injuries resulting from the 

use of prohibited drugs or the misuse of 

alcohol’’ and a ‘‘description of the 

alternative means that will be used to 

achieve the objectives of the provision 

that is the subject of the waiver, or, if 

applicable a justification of why it 

would be impossible to achieve the 

objective of the provision in any 

way’’).26 A4A stated these items should 

not be part of the waiver process since 

the FAA cannot impose a program that 

is inconsistent with the applicable laws 

of the country in which the repair 

station is located, making this 

information irrelevant. Both A4A and 

ARSA suggested that the FAA and DOT 

must automatically grant a waiver or 

exemption when there is an 

inconsistency in the law. They argued 

that the proposed process indicates the 

FAA could deny waivers despite the 

clear Congressional mandate to avoid 

inconsistencies with foreign laws, and 

the FAA offered no standards for 

making these decisions in the proposed 

rule. ARSA provided suggested 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103428 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27Proposed § 120.9(b)(3) and (6). 

amendments to the regulatory text 

consistent with its comments. Some 

commenters including IHI Corporation, 

a repair station in Japan, would like to 

see more flexibility on the approval of 

a waiver, considering the context of the 

country’s laws and regulations and their 

customs. 

Alternatively, supporting commenters 

including TWU noted the waiver and 

exemption process outlined in the 

NPRM is appropriately tailored and 

urged the FAA to maintain a narrow 

view of what necessitates an exemption 

or waiver. The TTD agreed, stating the 

FAA must carefully review each 

request, examine the country’s laws, 

and weigh the potential costs of relaxing 

important safety regulations. The 

Teamsters commented on the proposed 

requirements for requesting a waiver 

and stated maintaining a narrow process 

for granting waivers or exemptions is 

necessary for the pursuit of one level of 

safety across maintenance providers. 

They stated the elements the FAA 

requires to grant a waiver provide a high 

bar, and the FAA should maintain that 

high bar, not taking revenue or 

workforce size into account. They asked 

the FAA to maintain a narrow 

interpretation of what an 

‘‘inconsistency’’ with another country’s 

law is and require the requestor to cite 

laws that are explicitly inconsistent 

with the regulation. They also stated 

any request for a waiver or exemption 

will adversely affect accidents and 

injuries unless categorically proven 

otherwise. The Teamsters also stated it 

would be inappropriate and 

inconsistent with Congressional intent 

to only apply 14 CFR part 120 and 49 

CFR part 40 in part. 

The FAA recognizes that the different 

laws and regulations of some countries 

may place limitations on drug and 

alcohol testing, prohibit it entirely, or 

place conditions on how testing would 

be done. Congress contemplated this 

potential barrier in 49 U.S.C. 

44733(d)(2) as evidenced by the 

language requiring the drug and alcohol 

program to be both acceptable to the 

Administrator and consistent with the 

applicable laws of the country in which 

the repair station is located. As 

explained in the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed to avoid situations whereby 

the regulations of the FAA are 

inconsistent with laws in other 

sovereign countries through waivers and 

exemptions. 

To ensure that a waiver based on an 

inconsistent law results in an acceptable 

drug and alcohol testing program, 

§ 120.9(b) requires the foreign repair 

station to explain why granting the 

waiver ‘‘would not adversely affect the 

prevention of accidents and injuries 

resulting from the use of prohibited 

drugs or the misuse of alcohol by 

employees,’’ and describe ‘‘alternative 

means that will be used to achieve the 

objectives of the provision that is the 

subject of the waiver or, if applicable, a 

justification of why it would be 

impossible to achieve the objectives of 

the provision in any way’’.27 These 

elements of a request will inform the 

FAA’s assessment of whether a waiver 

is appropriate upon a showing of an 

inconsistent law, and whether any 

conditions or mitigation would be 

appropriate to further the purposes and 

objectives of the drug and alcohol 

requirements already deemed 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

The FAA recognizes that the varied 

laws of foreign countries could conflict 

with the drug and alcohol testing 

requirements in complex ways. Some 

asserted conflicts may be clear. For 

example, some countries may 

completely bar on privacy grounds any 

pre-employment drug testing, which is 

required by § 120.109(a), or random 

drug testing, which is required by 

§ 120.109(b). More difficult conflicts 

may arise when a country’s existing 

drug and alcohol testing requirements 

are inconsistent, though not outright 

barred, with the demands of the rule. 

These circumstances understandably 

result in uncertainty about how the FAA 

will address specific requests for 

waivers, but that uncertainty is inherent 

in the balance struck by Congress when 

it directed the FAA to require drug and 

alcohol testing in a manner acceptable 

to the Administrator and consistent 

with diverse foreign laws. The NPRM 

provided a standard that was deemed 

appropriate to the Administrator that 

will result in waivers to accommodate 

foreign laws upon a showing of 

inconsistency, though the FAA retains 

the authority to advance the purposes 

and objectives of the existing testing 

scheme to the greatest extent possible 

through appropriate conditions and 

limitations that still preserve 

consistency with foreign laws. 

Supporting commenters NDASA and 

APA suggested modifications to the 

proposed rule text regarding waiver 

requirements. First, NDASA suggested 

that FAA include a requirement that 

copies of foreign laws provided to the 

FAA are translated in English. Although 

English is the expectation for any 

submitted documentation, the FAA does 

not find this distinction needs to be 

included in the regulatory text. 

NDASA and APA recommended the 

modification of § 120.9(b)(6) to change 

from ‘‘if applicable, a justification of 

why it would be impossible to achieve 

the objectives of the provision in any 

way’’ to instead state, ‘‘if applicable, an 

explanation of how the safety objectives 

of the provision will be met with 

procedures that create an equivalent 

level of safety.’’ They asserted this 

change would always include safety, so 

it cannot be considered impossible to 

achieve. The FAA does not revise the 

adopted regulatory text to reflect this 

recommended revision in this final rule. 

As the FAA has acknowledged, each 

country impacted by this rule may have 

different laws on labor, employment, 

privacy, etc., which the repair stations 

in that country must follow. The FAA 

must consider the diversity of laws and 

ensure the regulatory language allows a 

repair station to remain consistent with 

the applicable laws of the country in 

which the repair station is located. 

Additionally, the element of safety is 

further explicitly accounted for in 

paragraph (b)(3), which requires an 

explanation of why granting the waiver 

would not adversely affect the 

prevention of accidents and injuries 

resulting from the use of prohibited 

drugs or the misuse of alcohol by 

employees. 

NDASA suggested adding a regulatory 

provision in 49 CFR part 40 to 

correspond with the NPRM’s proposed 

§ 120.9, likening the addition to the 

existing stand down waiver process, 

which has regulatory references in both 

§ 40.21 and § 120.125. The FAA 

determined this recommendation is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking, 

which is limited to amending part 120. 

3. Eliminating Waivers and Exemptions 

NDASA and APA commented they 

preferred to see no waiver or exemption 

option. APA stated all safety-sensitive 

work on part 121 aircraft should be 

required to adhere to the same, or at 

least substantially similar, stringent 

criteria as required for part 121 

maintenance personnel located within 

the United States to maintain a 

consistent minimum level of safety. 

APA further stated the FAA should 

prohibit part 121 operators from having 

maintenance performed in countries 

with laws that prohibit testing or make 

it impractical. They stated there is no 

logic behind permitting a knowing 

acceptance of reduced safety standards. 

NDASA agreed with APA’s comment, 

asserting that if a country cannot meet 

the criteria, the safest approach would 

be to prohibit the U.S. carrier from 

having safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions performed within that 

country. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103429 

28See 49 CFR 40.7(b). 

29 88 FR at 85138. 30 49 CFR 40.1(a) states that 49 CFR part 40 

applies to and instructs ‘‘all parties who conduct 

drug and alcohol tests required by [DOT] agency 

regulations how to conduct these tests and what 

procedures to use.’’ 

APA and NDASA commented that the 

exemption process proposed in the 

NPRM is not the correct mechanism for 

allowing a foreign repair station to opt 

out of the rule, and the waiver process 

in part 120 is more appropriate. They 

both stated the exemption process 

should be removed for three reasons: (1) 

part 40 should be followed as written 

regardless of where testing occurs due to 

the quality, consistency, and protections 

it affords; (2) exemptions should only be 

granted when there are ‘‘special or 

exceptional circumstances, not likely to 

be generally applicable and not 

contemplated in connection with the 

rulemaking’’, and (3) it is contrary to the 

Administrative Procedure Act and the 

DOT’s position on exemptions to make 

a regulation inviting exemptions from 

potentially 192 of the ICAO signatory 

countries and/or the individual repair 

stations in those countries. They stated 

that since the rule anticipates receiving 

petitions for exemption, the situation is 

not unusual and has been contemplated 

in the rulemaking, making the waiver 

process more appropriate. The 

commenters suggested deleting § 120.5 

from the proposed rule and making this 

a waiver process under § 120.9 only. 

The FAA appreciates the commenters’ 

concerns about exemptions under 49 

CFR part 40 being used to accommodate 

foreign laws applicable to foreign repair 

stations that are inconsistent with the 

part’s requirements. The FAA agrees 

that compliance with those 

requirements would ensure consistent, 

high-quality testing occurs when 

required by this rule. However, the FAA 

lacks the authority to grant an 

exemption in whole or in part from 49 

CFR part 40 under § 40.7 or implement 

a waiver process for relief from 49 CFR 

part 40. The exemption process 

described in 49 CFR part 5 is DOT’s 

established process for granting relief 

from 49 CFR part 40. Furthermore, 

because the availability of exemptions 

may be critical to compliance with the 

statutory mandate’s consistency 

requirement in some circumstances, the 

FAA defers to DOT to honor Congress’s 

intent if any appropriate exemptions are 

sought. As commenters noted, an 

exemption will only be granted under 

§ 40.7 if the requestor documents 

special or exceptional circumstances 

(e.g., a country’s law) that make 

compliance with a specific provision of 

49 CFR part 40 impracticable. These 

circumstances may not be generally 

applicable nor contemplated in 

connection with the rulemaking that 

finalized 49 CFR part 40,28 and, 

considering the unique context of each 

country’s laws, the FAA concludes that 

exemptions would not be generally 

applicable outside the foreign repair 

station’s country. Also, there is no 

evidence to suggest that DOT 

contemplated in the rulemaking 

finalizing 49 CFR part 40 the specific 

special or exceptional circumstances 

that may arise when a foreign law 

conflicts with the part’s requirements. 

APA and NDASA were also 

concerned granting waivers or 

exemptions to foreign repair stations 

may open the door to granting similar 

waivers to domestic employers and may 

have an impact on long-standing 

international testing required by the 

Federal Railroad Administration, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, and the Coast Guard. 

These commenters requested the FAA 

address the potential impact on the DOT 

agencies that require testing. 

The FAA does not find that the 

implementation of this final rule would 

have an impact on the testing 

requirements of another Federal agency 

requiring testing in accordance with 49 

CFR part 40. Each regulating agency and 

DOT has the authority to determine the 

applicability of their respective 

regulation and whether to consider 

providing relief from their respective 

regulation either in part or in whole. 

Further, the waiver option presented in 

this rule is specifically applicable to 

foreign repair stations that perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance on part 

121 air carrier aircraft. The FAA is not 

extending this option to domestic 

employers regulated under 14 CFR part 

120. 

4. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Authority 

A4A argued Congress did not confer 

authority to the FAA to impose a 

program over which it does not control, 

noting that 49 CFR part 40 is a DOT 

regulation and the FAA cannot grant 

exemptions to it. A4A also commented 

the FAA’s reliance on DOT’s 

exemptions far exceeds the 

Congressional limitations placed on the 

FAA, and the FAA cannot force the 

DOT to agree that an inconsistency 

meets the thresholds provided in 49 

CFR part 5. 

As a general matter, the FAA has 

broad statutory authority to promulgate 

regulations to implement programs 

established by statute and administered 

by the FAA. Under section 106 of title 

49 of the United States Code, the 

Administrator ‘‘is authorized to issue, 

rescind, and revise such regulations as 

are necessary to carry out’’ the 

Administrator’s and the FAA’s 

functions. Those functions include 

administering alcohol and drug testing 

programs codified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 

451. Specifically, the FAA’s authority to 

issue rules on alcohol and drug testing 

is in 49 U.S.C. 45102, which directs the 

Administrator to prescribe regulations 

that establish a program requiring air 

carriers and foreign air carriers to 

conduct certain drug and alcohol 

testing. In addition to these authorities, 

the final rule is promulgated under 

section 308 of the 2012 Act, 49 U.S.C. 

44733(d)(2), which directs the FAA to 

extend drug and alcohol testing 

requirements to foreign repair stations 

with employees that perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft. Section 309 of 

the 2012 Act further requires that such 

testing requirements be acceptable to 

the Administrator. The FAA maintains 

that the standards set forth in 14 CFR 

part 120 and 49 CFR part 40, which are 

cooperatively administered by the FAA 

and DOT, respectively, are acceptable 

drug and alcohol testing programs as 

applied to persons that perform safetysensitive maintenance functions at U.S.- 

based repair stations. Because the FAA 

lacks the data or studies to support a 

deviation from the current program 

requirements, for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 

44733(d)(2), the Administrator finds 

that the current drug and alcohol testing 

scheme is acceptable as applied to 

foreign repair stations. 

As the NPRM explained, the FAA and 

DOT have long engaged in a regulatory 

partnership regarding drug and alcohol 

testing of persons in the aviation 

industry.29 This partnership has 

resulted in linked regulations that 

generally govern DOT agencies’— 

including the FAA’s—drug and alcohol 

testing procedures in 49 CFR part 40, 

and more specific FAA regulations on 

the same subjects in 14 CFR part 120. 

The FAA’s existing drug and alcohol 

testing regulatory framework functions 

through both DOT’s and FAA’s 

regulations.30 As noted previously, the 

FAA has broad statutory authority to 

carry out its functions. Neither 49 U.S.C. 

44733(d)(2) nor any other statute limits 

the FAA’s authority to promulgate 

regulations on drug and alcohol testing 

that are consistent with the longestablished regulatory framework. 

Commenters offered no authority or 

analysis to suggest otherwise. They also 

did not explain how the FAA’s lack of 

control over DOT’s exemption process is 

relevant to the FAA’s statutory authority 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103430 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

31While the final rule amends 14 CFR 120.5 to 

require regulated entities to comply with 

exemptions issued under part 40, the final rule 

makes no changes to the longstanding requirement 

that those entities ‘‘having a drug and alcohol 

testing program under this part must ensure that all 

drug and alcohol testing conducted pursuant to 

[part 120] complies with the procedures set forth in 

49 CFR part 40.’’ 

32Although HHS has no authority to regulate the 

transportation industry, the DOT does have such 

authority. DOT is required by law to develop 

requirements for its regulated industry that 

‘‘incorporate the Department of Health and Human 

Services scientific and technical guidelines dated 

April 11, 1988, and any amendments to those 

guidelines . . .’’ See 49 U.S.C. 20140(c)(2). In 

carrying out its mandate, DOT requires by 

regulation at 49 CFR part 40 that its federallyregulated employers use only HHS-certified 

laboratories in the testing of employees, 49 CFR 

40.81, and incorporates the scientific and technical 

aspects of the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. 

33The ANPRM published at 79 FR 14621. The 

FAA responded to these comments in the NPRM. 

88 FR at 85141. 

to require a drug and alcohol testing 

program. The proposed regulations fall 

well within the FAA’s statutory 

authority, and the FAA’s continued 

reliance on 49 CFR part 40 is necessary 

to ensure consistency across the existing 

regulatory framework in which drug and 

alcohol testing conducted under this 

rule would occur.31 If an exemption 

from 49 CFR part 40 is necessary, a part 

145 repair station must request it in 

writing from DOT under the provisions 

and standards of 49 CFR part 5. While 

the FAA lacks control over DOT’s 

exemption process, the FAA and DOT 

may coordinate on these requests as 

they relate to implementation of a drug 

and alcohol testing program required by 

14 CFR part 120, particularly if the 

foreign repair station concurrently 

requests a waiver from this part 120. 

5. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) Authority 

A4A and ARSA stated the FAA did 

not address the requirements of the HHS 

that may apply to the testing program 

and whether repair stations may obtain 

relief from these requirements when 

inconsistent with foreign laws. The FAA 

disagrees with commenters that relief 

may need to be granted by HHS as part 

of this rule. Because requirements that 

connect to the HHS mandatory 

guidelines (e.g., laboratory 

certifications) are included in 49 CFR 

part 40, any relief needed by a foreign 

repair station, or its government, may be 

granted by DOT as part of the exemption 

process.32

6. Waiver Cost 

Commenters including ARSA, DG 

MOVE, MRO Holdings, and EL AL Israel 

Airlines expressed concern with the 

cost to request a waiver or exemption, 

stating the process is burdensome and 

will require the foreign citizen to obtain 

the services of experts in the fields of 

international law as well as HHS, DOT, 

and FAA regulations to decipher 

whether compliance with each section 

of the rules can be achieved. 

Commenters stated the cost of this is not 

included in the NPRM. 

Relatedly, CAA commented that the 

rulemaking fails to accurately account 

for the costly challenges if the rule was 

implemented as proposed and 

underestimates the practical and legal 

feasibility of implementing the 

conceived exemption process. They also 

stated that, as noted in the NPRM, over 

900 repair stations in over 30 countries 

would come under this rulemaking and 

even if only half applied for 

exemptions, there is no proper 

accounting by the FAA of the personnel, 

time, cost, and inherent delays for 

processing hundreds of exemptions 

involving explanation of local law, 

expertise of additional personnel, time, 

and cost to the applicant. 

The FAA acknowledges concerns 

regarding the cost of submitting waivers 

and exemptions. In the NPRM, the FAA, 

because of the uncertainty of how many 

repair stations would apply for a waiver 

or exemption, assumed that all repair 

stations would comply with the rule. 

The cost of creating and maintaining a 

drug and alcohol program is more 

expensive than the cost of all repair 

stations submitting a waiver or 

exemption. Therefore, the estimated 

cost in the NPRM is a conservative case 

in which the cost of the rule is higher. 

In response to comment, in the final 

rule, the FAA has expanded waiver 

eligibility to foreign governments, 

which FAA anticipates will mitigate the 

burden on foreign repair stations 

identified by commenters. Because of 

this addition, the FAA also added a 

second scenario that estimates the cost 

of all countries applying for this 

alternative means of compliance. 

G. Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements 

In the NPRM, the FAA invited 

comments on whether any Bilateral 

Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs) 

conflict with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. Though responsive 

commenters provided views on various 

BASAs, few offered evidence of direct 

conflicts with the requirements of those 

agreements. For example, BDLI 

commented that countries with existing 

BASAs already contain prohibitions and 

requirements regarding the 

consumption of drugs and alcohol in the 

workplace and any violation of these 

prohibitions would result in sanctions 

by the aviation authority and in serious 

cases criminal prosecution but did not 

explicitly provide which BASAs would 

conflict. Many commenters reiterated 

concerns that were submitted in 

response to the ANPRM.33 For example, 

commenters encouraged the FAA to 

honor the intent of the BASAs and to 

rely on them to implement aspects of 

the rule, focused on the need for 

consultation with BASA parties, and 

identified the potential for retaliation. 

As the NPRM explained, the FAA has 

been directed by Congress to promulgate 

regulations requiring part 145 repair 

stations outside the U.S. to have a drug 

and alcohol testing program for their 

employees who perform work on part 

121 aircraft. To the extent that BASA 

provisions concerning notice and 

consultation are applicable to the 

proposed regulations, the FAA intends 

to follow those provisions. 

1. Governmental Commenters 

Two foreign government 

transportation agencies representing the 

interests of the United Kingdom and the 

European Union commented in 

opposition to the NPRM and raised 

concerns about the BASAs between the 

United States and their respective 

jurisdictions. The UK DFT asserted that 

the US–UK BASA, Maintenance 

Implementation Procedure (MIP), and 

Maintenance Agreement Guidance 

(MAG) would need to be amended if the 

FAA finalized the NPRM as proposed 

and made it effective in the UK. In the 

UK DFT’s view, the FAA would be in 

breach of the MIP if it refused to certify 

a UK-based part 145 repair station for 

failure to comply with the NPRM’s 

proposed requirements. UK DFT also 

noted that the FAA did not consult on 

the proposal under the terms of the UK– 

US BASA prior to publication. Finally, 

the UK DFT encouraged the FAA to 

accept the UK aviation maintenance 

system as a whole and not seek to make 

changes to parts of it. The UK DFT 

further asked the FAA to respect the 

principles of trust, cooperation, 

communication, and safety culture 

which underpin the UK–US BASA. 

For the European Union, DG MOVE 

commented that a full account should 

be taken of the mutual trust and 

equivalency principles that underlie the 

US–EU BASA, and the existing 

requirements in place within the 

European Union. DG MOVE stated the 

BASA provides for a privileged 

exchange on regulatory developments, 

which was not done prior to the 

issuance of the proposed rule. DG 

MOVE asked the FAA to honor the longstanding cooperative relationship 

between Europe and the United States, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103431 

34For example, the UK–US BASA MIP defines 

‘‘special conditions’’ to mean the requirements of 

‘‘14 CFR parts 43 and 145 or in the (UK) Part-145 

that have been found, based on a comparison of the 

regulatory maintenance systems, not to be common 

to both systems and which are significant enough 

that they must be addressed.’’ US–UK BASA 1.7(h) 

to minimize economic burden on their 

respective aviation industries from 

redundant oversight, and to adhere to 

the comprehensive system of regulatory 

cooperation in civil aviation safety an 

environmental testing and approvals 

based on continuous communication 

and mutual confidence. 

The FAA acknowledges the concerns 

raised by UK DFT and DG MOVE, 

particularly with respect to prior notice 

and consultation concerning the NPRM 

and the requirements now finalized in 

the rule. The FAA is committed to 

honoring the principles of trust and 

cooperation embodied in the BASAs 

between the United States and the 

United Kingdom, the European Union, 

and other signatory partners. The final 

rule amends the proposal to address 

some of the concerns raised by UK DFT 

and DG MOVE. Specifically, the FAA 

has revised the waiver and provided an 

additional waiver option that gives 

foreign governments the ability to obtain 

a waiver on behalf of repair stations in 

its territory based on recognition of its 

program. The FAA is confident that the 

changes to the waiver options made in 

response to comment will allow for a 

streamlined process for further 

productive discussions and, if 

appropriate, the recognition of a 

country’s existing requirements as a 

compatible alternative pursuant to 

§ 120.10. As explained previously, the 

FAA has set the effective date of this 

rule to January 17, 2025 and includes a 

three-year compliance period to provide 

existing foreign repair stations up to 

three years to comply with the pathways 

adopted by this final rule. The FAA will 

further consult with parties to BASAs, 

where appropriate, on the impact of the 

final rule’s requirements on the relevant 

agreements during this three-year 

implementation period. 

2. Labor, Trade, and Industry 

Commenters 

Fourteen labor organizations, airline 

trade organizations, and companies in 

the airline and maintenance industry 

commented on the NPRM’s impact on 

the BASAs. Like the governmental 

commenters, the labor, trade, and 

industry commenters raised concerns 

about consultation and honoring the 

BASAs’ purposes and requirements. For 

example, Airbus commented that the 

FAA should take special care with 

countries where a BASA is in force, 

including engaging in in-person 

consultations on a regular basis to 

understand the legal, practical, and 

cultural issues related to drug and 

alcohol testing, and the measures 

already in place that may mitigate the 

need to deploy this rule. In addition, 

several commenters raised the potential 

for retaliation by foreign governments 

against repair stations located in the 

United States if the NPRM were to be 

finalized as proposed. 

Commenters including A4A, IATA, 

and ARSA argued that the rulemaking 

attempts an end-around of BASAs by 

including the proposal under 14 CFR 

part 120 instead of part 145. They also 

requested the FAA generally follow 

directives on bilateral agreements and 

procedures required by treaties. ARSA 

and A4A stated that drug and alcohol 

testing requirements would need to be 

included as amendments to the special 

conditions of certain BASAs, and that 

those changes should be made in 

accordance with the State Department’s 

sanctioned process associated with 

bilateral partners. A4A further suggested 

that FAA’s drug and alcohol testing 

program should be applied through part 

145 rather than part 120. A4A asserted 

that this change would respect comity 

and reciprocity by clarifying that any 

compliance issues would be processed 

through existing BASA provisions for 

special conditions. Accordingly, A4A 

explained that the proposed drug and 

alcohol testing requirements would 

automatically apply only in foreign 

jurisdictions without reciprocal 

recognition of the foreign repair station 

certificate (i.e., a BASA). IATA stated 

their agreement with these comments, 

adding that the proposed rule disregards 

the relevance of existing BASAs which 

recognize part 145 repair stations that 

are certificated by the safety regulator 

where the facility is located. IATA 

recommended that the FAA instead 

accept a country’s drug and alcohol 

testing requirements if there is a BASA 

in place that already addresses drug and 

alcohol testing. IATA asserted that a 

BASA should be renegotiated if there is 

no provision for drug and alcohol 

testing in an existing agreement. BDLI 

suggested that the FAA should treat as 

equivalent and sufficient any 

prohibitions and requirements regarding 

drug and alcohol consumption in a 

BASA party state. Airbus and Lufthansa 

Group alleged that the NPRM is 

incompatible with the U.S.-EU BASA. 

Airbus further noted that the U.S.-EU 

BASA Maintenance Annex Guide 

(MAG) is silent on drug and alcohol 

testing programs, but argued that this 

silence does not mean the NPRM would 

avoid conflict with the U.S.-EU BASA 

MAG. In their comment supporting the 

NPRM, the Teamsters noted opposing 

commenters have not provided evidence 

demonstrating that international 

obligations (i.e., BASAs) are inherently 

in conflict with the NPRM and that the 

FAA should not permit these concerns 

to impact the rulemaking. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ characterization of the 

NPRM as an attempt to circumvent the 

requirements or purposes of the BASAs. 

To the extent BASAs address repair 

stations, including through annexes and 

special conditions, those BASAs 

concern how the parties will inspect, 

evaluate, and certify that maintenance 

organizations meet the requirements of 

part 145 and its equivalent in the 

foreign jurisdiction. The FAA’s drug 

and alcohol testing regulations do not 

contain any maintenance standards that 

would be subject to special 

conditions.34 As the Teamsters correctly 

noted, commenters have not identified a 

specific conflict between the NPRM and 

the BASAs. However, the FAA agrees 

with the governmental commenters who 

suggested that further consultations and 

amendments to address the change of 

circumstances may be appropriate, 

consistent with the consultation 

provisions under applicable BASAs. 

The FAA is committed to doing so if a 

provision is identified warranting such. 

Opposing commenters argued that the 

FAA should transfer drug and alcohol 

testing requirements to part 145 for the 

limited purpose of ensuring that those 

requirements would be subject to the 

special conditions process under 

current BASAs. However, BASA parties 

have other means to address concerns 

about the requirements finalized in this 

rule, including provisions in each BASA 

allowing for consultation between the 

parties on amendments to address either 

party’s revisions to its regulations, 

procedures, or standards (including 

those outside of part 145). For these 

reasons, the FAA concludes that 

relocating the drug and alcohol testing 

requirements applicable to part 145 

repair stations is not appropriate or 

necessary. 

Some labor, trade, and industry 

commenters also raised concerns about 

retaliation against U.S.-based repair 

stations if drug and alcohol testing were 

extended beyond U.S. borders. For 

example, A4A and IATA commented 

that the NPRM’s impact on BASAs 

could increase the risk that foreign 

governments impose reciprocal and 

retaliatory drug and alcohol testing or 

other requirements on U.S.-based repair 

stations outside of a BASA’s mutual and 

cooperative certification regime. GAMA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

35For example, 71 FR 1666. 

warned that the FAA should not take 

any action that may dissuade other 

countries from entering into these 

agreements. MOOG Inc. similarly 

commented that the NPRM could result 

in backlash within current BASAs and 

limit the possibility of future 

agreements. The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns and has taken 

steps in the final rule to lessen the 

burdens on foreign governments and 

repair stations that could incentivize 

retaliation. As explained above, the 

FAA anticipates that the waiver changes 

made in response to comments in the 

final rule will facilitate recognition of a 

foreign government’s existing 

requirements as a compatible alternative 

that contains the minimum key 

elements of 14 CFR part 120. 

H. Safety Case 

1. Lack of Sufficient Data or Risk 

Twenty commenters including ARSA, 

IATA, MOOG Inc., and Lufthansa Group 

stated that there is insufficient statistical 

data (i.e., no safety case) to justify a rule 

requiring drug and alcohol testing 

programs at foreign repair stations. 

Several commenters continue to 

question the safety risk that would make 

issuance of a new regulation necessary, 

with A4A asserting safety measures 

must be data-driven and risk-based 

because the FAA fosters the industry’s 

success with its scientifically-based and 

data-driven safety regulations and 

programs. Because there have been no 

accidents or incidents related to safetysensitive maintenance personnel using 

drugs or alcohol, A4A argued Congress 

requires this rule, not the FAA’s safety 

mandate. Commenters asserted the FAA 

has no data showing evidence that drug 

use or alcohol misuse has ever caused 

or contributed to a maintenance 

function-related accident or incident, 

ergo there are no ‘‘proven accidents and 

incidents’’ involving drug use or alcohol 

misuse by maintenance personnel in the 

United States, European Union, and 

beyond. Some commenters argued that 

the absence of data indicates that there 

is no safety risk or productivity 

justification for the rule. 

Commenters including Airbus 

Commercial Aircraft, ARSA, IATA, 

CAA, and RAA emphasized how the 

FAA acknowledged in the NPRM there 

have been no accidents or incidents 

related to safety-sensitive maintenance 

personnel using drugs or alcohol and 

that the FAA could not determine 

whether the rule would have any 

additional impact on safety because the 

FAA does not have testing data or 

knowledge of existing testing programs 

in other countries. Some commenters, 

including GAMA and MOOG Inc., 

confirmed they have no records 

showing an issue with safety records 

and quality performance. Similarly, 

commenters from China (including 

Taikoo Shandong Aircraft Engineering 

Co., Ltd, Taikoo Xiamen Aircraft 

Engineering Co. Ltd, Taikoo Xiamen 

Landing Gear Services Co. Ltd, and 

HAECO Component Overhaul Xiamen 

Ltd.). 

BDLI, IHI Corporation, and JAL 

Engineering provided information that 

there is no record of an accident or 

incident that can be attributed to drug 

use or alcohol misuse. DG MOVE and 

UK DFT commented that there have 

been no occurrences of safety data at the 

United States level or the European 

Union level to substantiate the need to 

extend the current requirements to the 

EU. DG MOVE noted that a review of 

the European Central Repository looking 

at all incidents, serious incidents, and 

accidents in the EU Member States/EEA 

States between 2015–2023 showed only 

4 references to maintenance engineers 

who were suspected of consuming 

alcohol before work. In addition, IATA 

commented that between 1970 and 

2012, there were no occurrence reports 

of drug or alcohol intake at maintenance 

facilities in the ICAO Accident Data 

Reporting system. IHI Corporation 

would like the FAA to show how much 

flight safety will improve by conducting 

this testing, to ensure the cost is worth 

the benefit. BDLI stated lack of training, 

failure to follow instructions, 

overconfidence, distraction, fatigue, or a 

non-ergonomic workplace are far more 

likely to be named as potential sources 

of danger. 

The FAA acknowledges that it 

continues to have insufficient data to 

estimate a baseline level of safety risk 

associated with drug use and/or alcohol 

misuse at foreign repair states by safetysensitive maintenance personnel. The 

FAA believes that the safety data 

showing the number of positive test 

results for maintenance personnel 

subject to testing under the FAA’s 

domestic program offers strong support 

for this rulemaking. Based on the data 

reported to the FAA from all regulated 

domestic employers from 2005–2017, 

maintenance employees were subject to 

1,343,887 drug tests (including all test 

types). Of those tests, 17,046 resulted in 

a verified positive drug test result for 

one or more of the drugs tested. From 

2009–2017, employers reported that 

maintenance employees were subject to 

568,156 alcohol tests (including all test 

types), and 1,516 of those tests had a 

confirmed alcohol concentration of 0.04 

or greater. As the FAA has stated in 

previous rules,35 the FAA does not 

believe it should wait until there is an 

actual loss of human life before taking 

action to ensure safety-sensitive 

maintenance personnel are subject to 

testing. Only one link in the safety chain 

would have to fail for an accident to 

occur. Therefore, although the FAA 

cannot determine the quantitative 

impact on safety, Congressional intent 

has determined there is a safety benefit 

and the FAA has scoped this final rule 

to address the specific statutory 

mandates in 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) and 

49 U.S.C. 44733. 

2. Existing Regulations 

Many commenters noted that drug use 

and alcohol misuse in the aviation 

industry is sufficiently addressed 

through existing regulations of 

sovereign nations (including the 

European Union), as well as by the 

policies of employers within the 

industry. For example, DG MOVE 

commented they have robust safety 

management provisions in place for 

maintenance stations and the issue is 

covered by EU aviation safety 

regulations, in addition to Member 

States’ employment laws. RAA 

mentioned the industry has been 

successful implementing Safety 

Management Systems including drug 

and alcohol abatement programs, which 

foster scientifically-based and datadriven approaches as well as voluntary 

reporting programs. 

Boeing Research and Technology 

commented that stringent drug and 

alcohol monitoring policies are already 

in place in many countries and the 

existing policies are designed to ensure 

the safety and reliability of aviation 

maintenance work, often exceeding the 

requirements proposed by the FAA. 

They also stated that in some countries, 

laws are not standardized at the national 

level, but instead vary by state or 

province; they also may vary by the 

class of driver. 

The FAA received 2 comments from 

South Korean company Sharp Aviation 

K which requested an exemption and 

waiver from the rule due to the strict 

drug policy of South Korea. The 

company stated that South Korea’s 

citizens are prohibited from using drugs 

and drug testing is already mandatory 

for every worker as pre-employment 

requirements including foreign workers 

prior to visa issuance. 

Two commenters from Singapore 

questioned whether their existing 

processes were acceptable to meet the 

requirements of this rule. One 

individual questioned if a repair station 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103433 

that already sends personnel for drug 

and alcohol testing during their preemployment checkup needs to comply. 

The second, ST Engineering Aerospace 

Services Company Pte. Ltd., a foreign 

repair station, commented that 

Singapore already has a very strong 

policy against the sale and consumption 

of drugs, and their CAAS or local 

National Aviation Authorities (NAA) 

also has a bilateral agreement with FAA. 

They also stated they have a written 

policy on drug and alcohol testing 

which is accepted by other NAAs. They 

questioned whether their current policy 

is acceptable. 

The FAA appreciates the few 

commenters that provided information 

about their countries’ own testing laws, 

regulations, and/or requirements. This 

type of information helped the FAA 

better understand how countries 

impacted by this rule may have existing 

drug and alcohol testing requirements 

and local laws that could meet the same 

safety intent of the domestic 

requirements. As described previously, 

in response to comments, this final rule 

provides a waiver option allowing a 

foreign government, on behalf of all 

repair stations in the country, to submit 

an existing testing program for 

acceptance by the Administrator. An 

individual foreign repair station may 

also seek a waiver based on the laws of 

its country and current testing regimes 

or consequences that exist and meet the 

intent of the mandate. If a foreign repair 

station or its government, on behalf of 

all repair stations in the country, does 

not submit a request for waiver based on 

recognition of an existing testing 

program, the foreign repair stations 

must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 

part 120 and 49 CFR part 40, with the 

option to request a waiver or exemption 

as proposed in the NPRM. 

3. Alleviate Public Safety Concerns 

Twelve commenters who supported 

the NPRM noted the increased safety 

benefit the rule would bring and the 

need for a single level of safety 

domestically and in foreign countries. 

These commenters included the 

Teamsters, TTD, TWU, APA, NDASA, a 

software provider (Nexus 33 Group), 

and six individuals. The Teamsters 

argued for a single level of safety, stating 

the current ‘‘two-tiered’’ system of 

regulation is inappropriate and 

fundamentally unsafe. They also stated 

the ability of air carriers to evade 

regulatory responsibilities and the 

attendant costs of those responsibilities 

has played a role in the continued 

outsourcing of heavy maintenance. TTD 

stated it is a glaring and troubling 

loophole in the regulation that workers 

at domestic facilities must undergo 

extensive drug and alcohol testing while 

foreign mechanics working on U.S. 

aircraft are exempt. One individual 

commenter stated the benefit to safety 

outweighs any cost to foreign repair 

stations to implement these programs 

and potential obstacles of 

implementation. Nexus 33 Group LLC 

commented that safety is a team effort 

regardless of location and a drug free 

workplace is essential to safety. They 

stated that they recognize that many 

international repair stations already 

have a drug free workplace in place, and 

this would simply confirm their current 

enforcement of internal policies with 

oversight. An individual commented 

that airlines should always strive to 

keep their operations as safe as possible, 

and this NPRM could bring an 

additional ‘‘cushion’’ towards that. 

Another individual commented that 

they have seen the benefits of enhanced 

safety protocols as they relate to a sound 

workplace drug and alcohol testing 

program in the U.S., and it makes sense 

from a safety standpoint to expand a 

similar program to further ensure the 

safety of the traveling public. APA 

commented that although there have 

been no instances of an accident due to 

drug or alcohol use by someone in a 

safety-sensitive position, it is not an 

effective approach to safety to wait for 

something to happen before taking steps 

to prevent it from happening. APA 

further stated safety is not negatively 

impacted by these drug and alcohol 

programs, so there is no downside to 

implementing them from a safety 

perspective. 

As previously discussed in the NPRM, 

the FAA does not have sufficient data to 

estimate a baseline level of safety risk 

associated with drug use and/or alcohol 

misuse at foreign repair stations. The 

FAA received minimal explicit 

quantitative or qualitative information 

pertaining to foreign countries’ laws and 

regulations, program elements of 

acceptable drug and alcohol testing, and 

existing drug and alcohol testing 

programs in other countries. The FAA 

also continues to recognize the number 

of accidents and incidents involving 

drug use and/or alcohol misuse by 

safety-sensitive maintenance personnel 

at foreign repair stations is unknown. 

Because the FAA does not have 

sufficient testing data or knowledge of 

existing testing programs in other 

countries, the FAA is unable to estimate 

the impact of the final rule in detecting 

and deterring drug use and/or alcohol 

misuse. However, the FAA 

acknowledges commenters that asserted 

a public safety concern with foreign 

repair stations and agrees with 

commenters that acknowledged the 

safety benefits of drug and alcohol 

testing programs in the U.S. The FAA 

supports such programs to further 

ensure safety of the traveling public. 

I. Financial, Technical, and Operational 

Concerns 

1. Benefits and Costs 

Nineteen commenters mentioned the 

necessity of considering whether the 

benefits of mandating drug and alcohol 

testing programs in foreign repair 

stations outweigh the costs. Many 

commenters believed this rulemaking 

would create an excessive economic 

burden on the company without a 

significant benefit, including BDLI. 

Moreover, several commenters stated 

such a program would impose excessive 

costs on business operations, which 

would ultimately be transferred to 

customers, placing an additional burden 

on domestic operators. 

Airbus Commercial Aircraft 

commented that the lack of testing 

alternatives may convince some foreign 

repair stations to surrender their 

certificate because the volume of their 

activities with domestic operators no 

longer justifies their investment. A4A 

commented similarly, stating the FAA 

must consider the indirect competitive 

cost implications of the NPRM to the 

United States airline industry and assess 

the NPRM’s indirect costs to domestic 

airlines if foreign repair stations refuse 

to comply and forgo their part 145 

certification. Commenters generally 

expressed concern that the rulemaking 

will result in aircraft maintenance 

becoming unavailable to domestic air 

carriers at repair stations or in countries 

with few repair stations and will give an 

unfair competitive advantage to foreign 

air carriers. A4A asked the FAA to 

consider the likelihood of the loss of 

maintenance operations overseas for 

U.S. air carriers and the resulting 

economic and competitive impact for 

U.S. air carriers and the public that rely 

on their transportation. A4A stated the 

possibility is very real and included 

data on the strain on airline operations 

that currently struggle to obtain the 

necessary volume of maintenance 

services on a global scale. 

Several commenters from China 

including HAECO Component Overhaul 

Xiamen Ltd., Hong Kong Aero Engine 

Services Limited, and Taikoo Xiamen 

Landing Gear Services Co. Ltd stated 

that such a program would provide no 

additional benefit while imposing 

excessive costs on their business 

operations, which would ultimately be 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

transferred to customers, placing an 

additional burden on U.S. operators. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

primary and secondary cost impacts to 

the industry. Given that the FAA is 

offering in the final rule an expanded 

waiver and an exemption option, 

foreign repair stations will be afforded 

several avenues to achieve compliance 

with the rule and maintain current 

operations without consequential 

additional costs. 

2. Cost Data Based on U.S. Costs 

Commenters including A4A, DG 

MOVE and ARSA expressed concerns 

about the accuracy of the cost data 

included in the NPRM, stating the FAA 

has not comprehensively assessed the 

practical and economic implications of 

the rule implementation in foreign 

countries. These commenters believed a 

complex and costly testing program of 

non-U.S. based personnel should be 

supported by solid data, including a 

comprehensive cost basis that is 

reflective of the local, regional situation 

and not based on United States pricing. 

DG MOVE stated the cost of 

implementation cannot be solely based 

on the cost for domestic organizations to 

comply since there are practicalities of 

implementation specific to foreign 

organizations that can have a large 

influence on cost, which cannot be 

reliably estimated. DG MOVE further 

stated the impact assessment is 

incomplete and does not allow for a 

relevant cost-benefit analysis. ARSA 

stated that the cost estimate does not 

include the cost of compliance if the 

rule cannot be implemented as if the 

repair station was in the United States. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concern with respect to 

using data denominated in U.S. dollars 

such data does do not represent costs in 

local and regional situations. However, 

there is no country- or region-specific 

data available. Therefore, the FAA has 

converted the costs from U.S. dollars to 

exchange rates based on the Purchasing 

Power Parity (PPP). The FAA 

acknowledges this adjustment only 

accounts for exchange rates and 

heterogenous price levels and not 

heterogenous additional costs countries 

may incur as compared to complying 

with the rule within the jurisdiction of 

the United States, such as translation or 

legal services. However, the FAA does 

not have the data to estimate all the 

different cases that may arise in all the 

affected countries. 

With respect to the practical and 

economic implications of the rule 

implementation in foreign countries, the 

FAA has considered the heterogenous 

impact this rule will have in different 

countries and has concluded that an 

analysis of such implications would be 

impracticable due to its complexity, 

uncertainty, and lack of necessary data. 

Furthermore, as previously noted, legal 

challenges may limit some countries 

from complying with the rule. Because 

of this uncertainty, the FAA is 

providing a waiver option that will 

allow countries or individual repair 

stations to demonstrate they have met 

the intent of the rule if they have testing 

standards that meet the elements set 

forth in this rule. 

3. Costs Based on Compliance With 

HHS Requirements 

Several commenters argued that the 

NPRM failed to account for the costs of 

compliance with HHS requirements that 

are incorporated through 49 CFR part 

40. Among other things, ARSA 

commented that the FAA must assess 

the costs of obtaining HHS approval of 

laboratories and personnel, use of 

approved testing equipment, and 

transportation of specimens if 

necessary. ARSA argued that the FAA 

must review cost assessments included 

in the earlier rulemaking proceeding 

promulgating HHS requirements that 

would be applicable to foreign repair 

stations under the rule. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns regarding 

compliance with HHS requirements, 

which are included in 49 CFR part 40. 

However, the FAA regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) assumed all repair 

stations would send their testing 

samples to already-approved HHS 

laboratories, which are all in the U.S. 

and Canada, and would not elect to 

request HHS approval of a laboratory in 

their own country. Therefore, the cost of 

laboratory approval is not included in 

the RIA. 

As previously discussed, in this final 

rule the FAA is allowing a foreign 

government to obtain a waiver by 

requesting recognition of an existing 

testing program promulgated under the 

laws of the country that meets the 

minimum key elements set out in the 

regulation. If a foreign government 

chooses not to avail itself of this option, 

an individual foreign repair station may 

make its own request for a waiver based 

on recognition of an existing testing 

program. Under this option, the FAA 

may provide a waiver based on 

recognition of an existing testing 

protocol to the country as a whole or to 

an individual repair station, which 

would require no additional cost 

estimate. 

4. Small Business and Subcontractor 

Costs 

ARSA commented that the FAA must 

consider all tiers of small business that 

must comply with the current and 

proposed regulations and that the 

impact on small entities will be at least 

four times the amount estimated. They 

stated each repair station must evaluate 

whether their contractors and 

subcontractors will need to be included 

in their own programs to conduct 

aircraft maintenance, and the FAA 

failed to include the impact to 

contractors and subcontractors in the 

cost of the rule. Further, because they 

were not included, ARSA contended 

that these contractors and 

subcontractors did not have reasonable 

time to comment on the proposal. A4A 

agreed with the comments made by 

ARSA regarding the FAA’s cost-benefit 

analysis. 

The FAA acknowledges the impact to 

small businesses and their 

subcontractors. The FAA has included 

an analysis on the impact to small 

entities in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

section. 

With respect to subcontractors, this 

rule applies to foreign repair stations 

who perform maintenance on part 121 

air carrier aircraft outside the U.S. The 

FAA did not estimate the cost to 

subcontractors because if a foreign 

repair station decides to contract with 

another non-certificated maintenance 

provider to perform safety-sensitive 

aircraft maintenance functions on a part 

121 air carrier aircraft, the certificated 

repair station must include the 

personnel performing aircraft 

maintenance functions in their testing 

program. This rule does not require or 

allow a non-certificated contractor or 

subcontractor to implement its own 

FAA or DOT drug and alcohol testing 

program, which is why these parties are 

not accounted for in the rule. While this 

is different than how FAA applies 

testing within the U.S., the mandate for 

testing does not extend to noncertificated contractors or 

subcontractors that perform 

maintenance on part 121 air carrier 

aircraft outside the U.S. 

5. Quantitative and Qualitative Benefits 

APA and NDASA addressed the lack 

of economic data provided to the FAA, 

stating the lack of data does not nullify 

the safety benefit of the rule. NDASA 

suggested the FAA use a qualitative 

economic analysis for the rule, rather 

than a quantitative analysis. NDASA 

further commented the domestic 

program is effective as a deterrent, and 

the efficacy of drug and alcohol testing 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103435 

programs is well-proven and without 

question. The history of the domestic 

program proves the deterrent effect of 

Federally mandated drug and alcohol 

testing. NDASA asserted the more than 

35 years of effective deterrence is an 

important consideration that should be 

used to evaluate the costs and benefits 

of this rulemaking. 

NDASA further commented that if a 

quantitative analysis is needed, the FAA 

should assess the costs of illicit drug use 

and substance abuse disorders rather 

than the cost of equivalent testing 

programs in other countries. NDASA 

referred to ‘‘Injury Costs’’ and the 

‘‘Substance Abuse Cost Calculator’’ on 

the National Safety Council website and 

the calculator for workplace costs of 

substance use disorders on the National 

Institute of Health’s National Library of 

Medicine 2017 article from the Journal 

of Occupational Medicine for data. 

The FAA agrees that drug and alcohol 

testing has certain qualitative benefits 

that are discussed in other sections of 

this preamble and the regulatory impact 

analysis supporting this final rule. With 

respect to quantitative data, the FAA 

declines to rely on the commenter’s 

proposed sources of data for a 

quantitative analysis. Those sources 

provide aggregated U.S.-based statistics 

and tools without a basis for 

extrapolation to aviation-sector 

employers in foreign countries. 

Furthermore, as noted in the NPRM and 

supporting documents, there are no 

documented cases in which an accident 

was connected to a repair station 

employee. Therefore, it is not possible 

to conduct a quantitative benefits 

analysis for this rule. The quantitative 

cost analysis the FAA conducted, as 

discussed herein and in the NPRM, 

accounts for the costs of implementing 

and maintaining an alcohol and drug 

testing program and the cost associated 

with submitting and reviewing requests 

for waivers and exemptions. 

6. Economic Equity Between Domestic 

and Foreign Repair Stations 

TWU and one individual noted the 

NPRM would level the economic 

playing field between foreign and 

domestic repair stations helping to 

correct an imbalance that benefits 

foreign repair stations. TWU stated the 

current regulatory requirements have 

created a loophole benefitting foreign 

repair stations by enabling and 

effectively encouraging the offshoring of 

aircraft maintenance jobs. Because 

foreign repair stations are not required 

to meet the same regulatory 

requirements as domestic repair 

stations, TWU claimed the number of 

foreign repair stations has grown more 

than 40% since 2016, and 

approximately 56% of the total 

workforce maintaining, repairing, and 

overhauling U.S.-flagged aircraft is 

based outside of the United States. TWU 

pointed out China specifically, stating 

they employ more than 7% of the global 

workforce doing this work. They stated 

exempting these foreign repair stations 

from the regulation creates a relative 

advantage for those firms that are 

directly competing against the U.S. 

workforce. 

In addition to the safety benefits, the 

FAA acknowledges that an alcohol and 

drug testing program for foreign repair 

stations that is equal to those programs 

required in the jurisdiction of the FAA 

would create uniform standards for all 

repair stations. The FAA further 

acknowledges the pathways provided in 

the final rule (e.g., waivers pursuant to 

§§ 120.9 and 120.10) will not create a 

uniform standard for all foreign repair 

stations or between domestic and 

foreign repair stations. The purpose of 

these regulations is to obtain safety 

benefits equal to those required in the 

U.S. to the extent permissible under the 

Congressional mandate, which requires 

a balance between the safety benefits of 

domestic testing requirements deemed 

acceptable by the Administrator and 

conflicting foreign requirements. 

7. Specific Implementation Concerns 

A number of commenters believed 

costs of implementation for a domestic 

repair station are minimal compared to 

the burden on the government and the 

foreign citizens because of the drug and 

alcohol testing requirements. A4A 

pointed out such obstacles may be so 

unreasonable to overcome or present 

such burdens that the cost of 

compliance far outweighs any 

measurable benefit and asked the FAA 

to strongly consider any obstacles that 

may result in validity issues, unfairly 

threaten the careers of qualified 

maintenance employees, or make 

compliance unreasonably burdensome 

for a repair station. RAA agreed with 

this comment and asked the FAA to 

address how the FAA envisions small 

repair stations to implement the 

program, especially in remote locations. 

Commenters including ARSA and IATA 

pointed out many examples of 

requirements of 49 CFR part 40 that will 

be difficult to implement in a foreign 

country, such as the dependence upon 

qualifications and training for service 

agents (e.g., Medical Review Officers, 

collectors, and substance abuse 

professionals) that are specific to the 

United States, or equipment such as 

alcohol screening devices that may not 

be readily available in every country. 

IATA commented that these testing 

devices also have very specific use and 

care requirements that can only be 

performed by its manufacturer or a 

certificated maintenance representative. 

New Era Drug Testing, MRO Holdings, 

and ASAP addressed the need for 

established training for collectors and 

other personnel in the testing process, 

including collectors and MROs. New 

Era also brought up the need for 

multilingual translators for MROs 

during donor interviews. ASAP further 

stated the FAA needs to do further 

engagement with foreign governments 

and stakeholders to fully understand the 

practical challenges of adapting the 

procedures. Airbus Commercial Aircraft 

commented that not all maintenance 

personnel should be automatically 

subject to alcohol and controlled 

substance testing because this could 

lead to organizations circumventing the 

costs associated with the establishment 

and maintenance of a testing program. 

Specifically, Airbus stated that some 

organizations maintaining components 

off wing may be tempted to deliver their 

components to distributors who do not 

hold a part 145 certificate, or to 

establish such a company to distribute 

their components. MOOG Inc., also 

stated that aircraft undergoing 

maintenance may have components 

removed and replaced by new or 

maintained articles which, as produced 

under FAA part 21 requirements, are 

not subject to drug and alcohol 

programs, meaning a component 

removed from a part 121 aircraft and 

replaced with a new component will not 

be manufactured with a drug and 

alcohol program compliant to 14 CFR 

part 120 and 49 CFR part 40. 

Commenters including A4A, DG 

MOVE, MRO Holdings, Airbus, and 

New Era expressed concern for the lack 

of laboratories certified by the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services under the National Laboratory 

Certification Program outside of the 

United States and the significant burden 

associated with shipping specimen to a 

laboratory in the United States in a 

manner that complies with HHS’s strict 

chain of custody requirements, or 

attempting to get a local laboratory 

certified, which they stated is not a cost 

accounted for in the rule. A4A and MRO 

Holdings also noted the possibility of 

specimen validity and the potential for 

a sample to be exposed to extreme 

temperature variances, causing 

distortion if repair stations are required 

to ship specimens across borders. Other 

commenters mentioned foreign repair 

station operations in remote locations 

where available individuals qualified to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

perform collections as well as access to 

timely resources and shipping options 

are limited. Airbus commented it is 

unclear why the flexibility provision 

applicable to the domestic repair 

stations not electing to implement a 

drug and alcohol testing program is not 

equally offered to foreign part 145 

certificated repair stations and the lack 

of suitable solutions may convince some 

part 145 certificated repair stations 

located outside the U.S. to surrender 

their certificate, for example, because 

the volume of their activities with U.S. 

operators no longer justifies their 

investment. 

A SAP directory service that 

supported the rule, SAPlist.com, also 

brought attention to the difficulty 

outside of cost to implementing the 

return-to-duty process outside of the 

U.S., citing language barriers, exams, 

time differences, and international 

referrals for substance abuse 

professionals. The commenter raised 

several questions regarding the SAP 

process, including whether the SAP 

must be in the U.S. or in the foreign 

country. If the SAP is in the U.S. and 

provides a virtual assessment, the 

commenter asked how a SAP could 

make referrals for treatment in another 

country, noted language differences, 

online resources being in another 

language, time differences, and virtual 

assessments requiring certain 

technologies. If the SAP is in the foreign 

country, the commenter raised the issue 

of ensuring the SAP is qualified to DOT 

standards with no qualification training 

or exams in another language than 

English, and SAP credentials outside 

the U.S. The commenter also asked 

whether DOT will provide the 

regulations in other languages. DG 

MOVE also mentioned the cost of 

training and qualification of SAPs. 

ASAP raised similar questions about 

international SAP qualifications; the 

availability of international SAPs and 

treatment programs that understand the 

local requirements and U.S. regulations; 

the geographical, logistical, and legal 

challenges of international telehealth 

services, international substance use 

treatment protocols; and whether repair 

stations will need to make international 

referrals. ASAP commented adapting 

part 40 requirements for use in foreign 

certificated repair stations involves 

careful consideration of the local legal 

systems, cultural norms, and available 

substance abuse treatment resources. 

A4A recommended the FAA 

undertake a full cost-benefit analysis of 

the burdens of implementation as 

recommended by OMB Circular No. A– 

4, which states analysis should ‘‘look 

beyond the obvious benefits and costs of 

your regulation and consider any 

important additional benefits or costs, 

when feasible.’’ A4A requested a 

supplemental proposal to minimize 

these obstacles and present an updated 

regulatory impact analysis. 

The FAA acknowledges commenters’ 

extensive concerns about implementing 

the requirements of 14 CFR part 120 and 

49 CFR part 40 outside the territories of 

the U.S. Further, the FAA acknowledges 

commenters’ concerns that some testing 

or procedural requirements in the 

regulations would be especially 

burdensome and costly to meet for a 

part 145 repair station located outside 

the territory of the U.S. (e.g., use of 

HHS-certified laboratories). As 

discussed above, this final rule expands 

waiver options to foreign governments 

on behalf of repair station operators 

within its territory. The waiver option is 

now also available to an individual 

foreign repair station, which may seek a 

waiver based on recognition of an 

existing testing program promulgated 

under the laws of the country as a 

compatible alternative that meets the 

key elements set out in the regulation. 

By obtaining a waiver based on 

recognition, a foreign repair station may 

meet the requirements of this final rule 

without applying 14 CFR part 120 and 

49 CFR part 40 directly. It will allow 

them to present a program or other 

requirements that exist in their 

country’s existing framework to the 

Administrator for recognition as the 

basis for the waiver, which will 

eliminate the need to meet requirements 

in 14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 

that have been identified by 

commenters as exceedingly difficult to 

implement. 

The FAA also acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

secondary cost impacts to the industry. 

Given that FAA has provided more 

flexibility for the waiver options and 

there are exemption options in the final 

rule, there will be several avenues for 

foreign repair stations to comply with 

the rule and maintain current operations 

without consequential additional costs. 

The regulatory impact analysis has been 

updated to reflect the additional means 

of compliance included in the final rule. 

J. Extending Testing to Part 121 

Maintenance Personnel 

In the NPRM, the FAA sought 

comments as to whether the testing 

requirements should be extended to 

foreign aircraft mechanics working 

directly for part 121 carriers. 

Commenters were asked to submit data 

that would allow the FAA to quantify 

the benefits and costs of expanding drug 

and alcohol testing requirements to 

these mechanics. 

Three commenters who supported the 

NPRM, including the Teamsters, stated 

that if the goal of the NPRM is to 

eliminate an aviation maintenance 

ecosystem in which the ability to 

uphold a single level of safety is 

predicated on the geographic location of 

the maintenance facility, all aircraft 

mechanics working on part 121 aircraft 

should be captured in the rulemaking. 

The Teamsters and TWU warned that 

without this coverage, the rule may 

create an incentive for part 121 carriers 

to move maintenance from a contracted 

part 145 repair station to an in-house 

facility where the airline can evade the 

regulatory costs associated with 

compliance. NDASA pointed out the 

statute does not explicitly restrict the 

FAA from including part 121 

mechanics, and adding them to the rule 

is consistent with the statute. Airbus 

Commercial Aircraft commented that 

the absence of drug and alcohol testing 

requirements for employees of part 121 

certificate holders located outside the 

United States may create an inconsistent 

treatment of maintenance personnel 

working at the same location and result 

in a weakness of a safety net. 

Opposing commenters also 

commented on the proposal to include 

part 121 air carrier employees who 

perform aircraft maintenance, with A4A 

stating FAA’s safety data does not 

support an expansion of the rule and the 

FAA has not adequately considered or 

analyzed the costs and benefits of an 

expansion. A4A and GAMA noted that 

the FAA should stay within the confines 

of the statutory mandate and not expand 

the scope without support from safety 

data. By contrast, ARSA argued that the 

FAA must explain why it is not 

extending testing requirements to 

similarly-situated part 121 employees in 

foreign countries, and the failure to 

apply drug and alcohol testing in a 

uniform and consistent manner belies 

the FAA’s requirement to ensure 

aviation safety. A4E also commented on 

the differing treatment of employees 

from part 145 repair stations and part 

121 operators, noting that the proposed 

regulations would not ‘‘level the playing 

field’’ for these entities because 

maintenance personnel employed by 

part 121 operators outside the U.S. are 

not subject to drug and alcohol testing 

while employees serving the same 

function for part 145 repair stations 

outside the U.S. would be under these 

regulations. The Lufthansa Group 

similarly commented that the proposal 

would not create a ‘‘level playing field.’’ 

In response to the NPRM, the FAA 

received no safety data justifying the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103437 

36The FAA notes that, after the comment period 

closed, the FAA engaged in a meeting with DG 

MOVE and EASA for the Bilateral Oversight Board 

for the U.S.-EU Safety Agreement on June 11, 2024. 

At that time, DG MOVE reiterated its concerns with 

the proposal and specifically suggested 

collaboration with the FAA at ICAO to pursue a 

more global approach on the issue. The FAA 

uploaded a Memorandum to the docket 

summarizing the interaction as of July 8, 2024. 

benefits and costs of expanding drug 

and alcohol testing requirements to 

foreign aircraft mechanics working 

directly for part 121 carriers. Because 

the statutory mandate specifically 

required all part 145 repair station 

employees responsible for safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 air carrier aircraft outside the U.S. 

to be subject to an alcohol and 

controlled substances testing program 

determined acceptable by the 

Administrator and consistent with the 

applicable laws of the country in which 

the repair station is located, and because 

the FAA lacks safety data to support an 

expansion of the rule, this final rule 

does not expand the scope of the rule to 

foreign aircraft mechanics working 

directly for part 121 carriers. 

The FAA acknowledges comments 

noting that the final rule may result in 

differing treatment of part 145 and part 

121 employees outside of the U.S. but 

finds the commenters’ arguments 

unpersuasive. As discussed above, the 

FAA does not have an articulable safety 

basis to extend drug and alcohol testing 

to part 121 employees outside the U.S., 

and Congress has not instructed the 

FAA to do so. By contrast, Congress has 

mandated the FAA to require such 

testing of part 145 employees. 

Accordingly, though commenters 

suggested that the FAA must extend 

testing requirements to part 121 

employees to ensure equivalent 

treatment to part 145 employees, the 

FAA concludes that the suggestion is 

misplaced because the record before the 

agency does not support an extension. 

K. EU and International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) 

A4E commented a European Unionwide solution is preferable for waivers 

and exemptions. The Lufthansa Group 

commented they would like to see a 

waiver option established at the 

European Union level, since they have 

multiple repair stations located outside 

of Germany but within the European 

Union, each with its own defined labor 

law rules, regulations, and restrictions. 

This process should allow for bilateral 

discussions and negotiations and 

conclude with a formal agreement that 

expressly recognizes the laws of each 

country and appropriately addresses 

any inconsistencies at the country level, 

rather than the individual repair station 

level. They stated this will allow the 

foreign government to provide a single 

and unified position on its laws versus 

the potential for individual repair 

stations to inconsistently interpret the 

laws of their country, which may result 

in contrary waivers or exemptions for 

repair stations in the same country, and 

thereby reducing the number of waiver 

and exemption requests the FAA and 

DOT would receive. Commenters stated 

this cooperation between governments 

would foster safety, the respective rights 

of individuals, consistency, and 

operational, administrative, and 

implementation efficiency regarding 

maintenance operations and employees. 

Although some commenters suggested 

an EU-wide option for submitting 

waivers and exemptions, the FAA has 

not implemented this option. An EUwide option is also not available for the 

second pathway of compliance with this 

rule where a foreign government, on 

behalf of its repair station operators 

within its territory, or an individual 

repair station may request a waiver 

based on recognition of an existing 

testing program promulgated under the 

laws of the country as a compatible 

alternative. Because each country has its 

own individual laws and requirements 

that may impact its drug and alcohol 

testing programs, each foreign 

government is in the best position to 

know the laws imposed on their own 

citizens. 

Eighteen commenters including A4E, 

IATA, CAA, BDLI, GE Aerospace, 

Airbus Commercial Aircraft, and GAMA 

stated that the appropriate vehicle 

through which to require drug and 

alcohol testing at foreign repair stations 

would be a new ICAO initiative. These 

commenters believed consultation and 

coordination with ICAO member States 

is the only way to ensure the FAA meets 

the statutory requirement to be 

‘‘consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country where the repair station is 

located.’’ Specifically, the DG MOVE 

called upon the FAA to bring this issue 

to the attention of ICAO to examine the 

safety case and pursue a global solution 

through the establishment of 

international standards, where 

warranted.36 GAMA stated ICAO should 

issue Standards and Recommended 

Practices (SARPs) governing such 

testing to ensure a single Member State 

does not violate the national sovereignty 

of others and that consultation and 

coordination through ICAO and with 

ICAO member states is the only method 

that can ensure the final rule is 

consistent with the applicable laws of a 

foreign repair station’s country. 

Commenters believed an ICAO initiative 

would set a common baseline for safety 

with adequate flexibility for varying 

customs and laws, which governments 

could follow when issuing their own 

regulations. A4A noted the single 

request the FAA made for countries to 

support ICAO action to establish alcohol 

and controlled substance testing 

requirements may have been compliant 

with the mandate, but it is not enough 

to reflect the FAA’s support for 

international standardization. A4A 

mentioned other countries have 

continued their push for ICAO action on 

minimum standards for drug and 

alcohol testing, and they encouraged the 

FAA to continue efforts at ICAO for an 

international standard in lieu of the 

proposed rule. IATA also commented 

that an agreement through ICAO would 

preclude extraterritorial mandates and 

violations of local laws while providing 

the framework for a global solution and 

that without such a solution, they are 

concerned that the FAA’s current 

extraterritorial proposal would invite 

retaliation by other governments. 

A supporting commenter, APA, stated 

that approaches to working with other 

countries and ICAO to develop joint 

guidelines have yielded little progress 

in implementing or enforcing drug and 

alcohol standards internationally. They 

stated that despite jointly developed 

ICAO standards in Annex 1 to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation and various countries’ aviation 

regulations prohibiting the use of drugs 

and alcohol, many countries either do 

not mandate compliance testing for 

aviation personnel or they exclude 

maintenance personnel from testing. 

The FAA has supported the 

development of international drug and 

alcohol testing standards since the 

Congressional mandate was first 

introduced and believes that they could 

help deter and detect drug use and 

alcohol misuse that could compromise 

aviation safety. In addition to 

promulgating a proposed rulemaking, 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 sought to direct the Secretaries 

of State and Transportation, acting 

jointly, to request the governments of 

foreign countries that are members of 

ICAO to establish an international 

standard for alcohol and controlled 

substances testing of persons who 

perform safety-sensitive work on 

commercial air carriers. The Department 

of State sent a cable to all embassies on 

October 19, 2012. Although the 

response was minimal, most of the 

member states that did respond 

supported these efforts. However, as 

explained in the NPRM, ICAO standards 

still do not require ICAO Member States 

to establish (or direct industry to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

37FAA Advisory Circular 120–126, Guidelines to 

Establish, Implement, and Maintain a DOT/FAA 

Drug and Alcohol Testing Program (Jul. 10, 2024). 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_

circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/ 

documentID/1042452 

establish) testing programs to deter or 

detect drug use and alcohol misuse by 

aviation personnel in the performance 

of safety-sensitive functions. Although 

the ICAO standards set forth in Annex 

1 and many countries’ aviation 

regulations prohibit the use of drugs and 

alcohol by certain aviation personnel 

when use may threaten aviation safety, 

many countries either do not require 

testing of aviation personnel to verify 

compliance or do not extend testing to 

safety-sensitive maintenance personnel. 

Should ICAO adopt drug and alcohol 

program standards in the future, it is 

FAA policy to conform to ICAO SARPs 

to the maximum extent practicable in 

keeping with U.S. obligations under the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. 

The FAA reconsidered and expanded 

its waiver options for the final rule, 

whereby a foreign government, on 

behalf of its repair station operators, or 

an individual foreign repair station, may 

seek a waiver based on the laws of the 

country. This alternative to meeting the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 120 and 49 

CFR part 40 will allow a repair station 

to operate a testing program based on 

the laws of its country and current 

testing regimes or consequences that 

exist. The FAA publishes this final rule 

in accordance with the Act’s statutory 

mandate in an area within which there 

are no applicable ICAO SARPs. The 

FAA expects this waiver to more easily 

allow for the application of a testing 

program that is in alignment with any 

future SARPs. 

L. Scope of Safety-Sensitive Functions 

Commenters requested clarification 

on what qualifies as an aircraft 

maintenance function. A4E argued the 

FAA failed to define the term in its 

regulation and has left it up to the Flight 

Standards Service of the FAA to 

determine, causing significant 

confusion. Airbus stated they believe 

only maintenance personnel performing 

tasks that could result in a failure, 

malfunction, or defect endangering the 

safe operation of the aircraft if not 

performed properly or if improper parts 

or materials are used should be 

considered for testing, and GAMA 

specified the testing should only apply 

to those performing ‘‘heavy 

maintenance’’ to meet the language of 

the statute. Some foreign repair station 

commenters expressed confusion about 

whether their repair station performs 

aircraft maintenance functions or stated 

they do not perform it, such as Excel 

Aerospace in Singapore and Honeywell 

in Brazil. There was also confusion 

among commenters about the status of 

manufacturing and whether it is 

considered maintenance, and IHI 

Corporation requested examples of 

target roles of safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions. Airfoil Services 

in Malaysia sought clarification if they 

need a program because they perform 

maintenance on components that are 

delivered to a customer to be assembled 

later. Another foreign repair station, 

Tamagawa Aero Systems in Japan, asked 

which employee category they fall 

under in § 120.105. ARSA also 

commented the FAA is targeting 

maintenance providers, and no other 

type of safety-sensitive function 

regulated under 14 CFR part 120 is 

required to test at ‘‘any tier’’ in the 

contract. 

Further, Airbus proposed limiting this 

rule to individuals with the authority to 

designate (identification/callout), 

implement, and/or perform inspection 

of Required Inspection Items (RII), 

which they state would make the 

requirements match the direction given 

by Congress. Airbus stated that when 

the FAA defined persons involved in 

aircraft maintenance (broad sense) with 

safety-sensitive functions, it implied 

that all personnel involved in 

maintenance carry out aviation safetyrelated aircraft maintenance. It stated 

the FAA should exclude maintenance 

personnel that are involved in aircraft 

maintenance that does not put aviation 

safety at risk. 

Airbus also commented with respect 

to maintenance and preventive 

maintenance duties, stating it is unclear 

whether the qualifying term ‘aircraft’ is 

to refer to aircraft maintenance in the 

broad sense (e.g., aircraft maintenance 

vs. airport maintenance) or maintenance 

performed on aircraft (i.e., on-wing), 

excluding maintenance on articles and 

components not installed on an aircraft 

(i.e., off-wing). Airbus proposed a 

regulatory text change to 14 CFR 

120.105(a) and 120.215(a) to read: 

‘‘Duties related to required inspections 

of maintenance and alteration items of 

aircraft’’ instead of ‘‘aircraft 

maintenance and preventive 

maintenance duties.’’ They stated this 

wording would allow the Administrator 

to use any appropriate designation, free 

from ambiguity, to target a precise 

population of personnel involved in 

maintenance and alteration of aircraft. 

The FAA disagrees that further 

explanation or definition of aircraft 

maintenance functions are necessary in 

the rule. The drug and alcohol testing 

regulations intentionally do not 

differentiate between heavy or safety 

critical and non-safety critical forms of 

maintenance. When determining 

whether a safety-sensitive employee 

performs aircraft maintenance duties, 

whether under a foreign or domestic 

repair station, impacted parties should 

consider the duties of their employees 

as they relate to the FAA’s definition of 

maintenance under 14 CFR 1.1 and 14 

CFR part 43. According to 14 CFR 1.1, 

maintenance includes inspection, 

overhaul, repair, preservation, and the 

replacement of parts, but excludes 

preventive maintenance. For example, a 

manufacturer that performs a test on a 

component to determine the extent of 

repairs necessary or the serviceability of 

a component is performing maintenance 

since the testing performed on the 

aircraft component may be part of an 

inspection requirement in the technical 

data being used in the testing process. 

The Flight Standards Service aviation 

maintenance inspectors are the experts 

in determining what functions meet the 

definitions of aircraft maintenance. The 

Flight Standards Service and the Drug 

Abatement Division in the FAA’s Office 

of Aerospace Medicine developed 

guidance about the most common 

functions that are considered aircraft 

maintenance, which is provided in FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC) 120–126.37 If an 

impacted party needs further guidance 

after reviewing the definitions and 

examples provided in FAA’s AC 120– 

126, they should consult with the Flight 

Standards Service or their FAA 

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI). 

The FAA has made no regulatory 

changes to the definition of aircraft or 

maintenance based on these comments. 

M. Miscellaneous Comments 

Out of Scope Comments. One 

individual commenter stated the FAA 

should require testing and maintain the 

same standards as in the U.S., even if 

the laws of a country do not allow it. 

The FAA can override neither, first, the 

sovereignty of another country, nor, 

second, the Congressional direction in 

49 U.S.C. 44733 to promulgate a rule 

requiring part 145 repair station 

employees be subject to an alcohol and 

controlled substances testing program 

that is consistent with the applicable 

laws of the country in which the repair 

station is located. One individual 

commenter stated the FAA should 

include truck drivers from Mexico and 

Canada when crossing the border to the 

U.S. The comments are outside the 

scope of the Congressional mandate and 

this rulemaking. 

Excluded Countries. A4E commented 

on their concern for the creation of a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103439 

38Section 302 of the 2024 Act directed the FAA 

to issue a final rule implementing Congress’s 

mandate in 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2). 

level playing field since the NPRM will 

not apply to countries without a 

requirement for a part 145 repair station 

certificate (e.g., Canada). Like part 121 

employees outside the U.S. discussed in 

section IV.J, the FAA does not have an 

articulable safety basis to extend drug 

and alcohol testing generally to 

employees performing safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions for an 

organization that does not hold a part 

145 repair station certificate located 

outside the territory of the U.S., and 

Congress has not instructed the FAA to 

do so. Instead, Congress has mandated 

the FAA to require such testing of part 

145 repair station employees 

responsible for safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft. Accordingly, though the 

commenter suggested that the FAA must 

extend testing requirements to noncertificated maintenance organizations 

that perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance, the FAA concludes that 

the suggestion is misplaced because the 

record before the agency does not 

support an extension. 

Oral Fluid Testing. NDASA stated 

they believe the use of oral fluid testing 

will make implementation of part 40 

easier outside of the U.S. once there are 

oral fluid laboratories available. 

Specifically, it may reduce the number 

of petitions for waiver or exemption 

from the rule since other countries may 

deem oral fluid testing less intrusive 

from a privacy perspective than urine 

testing. They stated oral fluid testing is 

preferred in Australia, New Zealand, 

and other countries. The FAA 

acknowledges this comment and agrees 

that the use of oral fluid drug testing 

may make drug testing collection more 

accessible to foreign repair stations. 

Guidance. Airbus commented that it 

was unclear who is the principal 

maintenance inspector for European 

Approved Maintenance Organizations 

(AMOs) that obtained their U.S. part 145 

repair station certificate under the U.S.- 

EU BASA MAG. Airbus recommended 

that guidance material should be 

developed, reviewed, and tested with 

several affected AMOs before the entry 

into force of the final rule of this 

rulemaking proposal to ensure a smooth 

implementation. The FAA 

acknowledges this comment and will 

work with AMOs to the extent necessary 

to comply with the final rule. 

Random Testing Rates. MRO 

Holdings expressed concern as to how 

the FAA will calculate the random pool 

testing rate. The rate is determined by 

reviewing the positive rate for the 

‘‘entire industry,’’ but these rates will 

differ from country to country, which 

could cause countries with low rates to 

have burdensome and costly tests that 

are not aligned with usage rates of that 

country. Foreign repair stations that are 

required to meet the requirements of 14 

CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 may 

be required to submit an annual report 

of testing statistics in accordance with 

14 CFR 120.119(a) and 120.219(b)(1), 

which allows the FAA to determine the 

positive rate for the entire industry. 

Because the Administrator’s decision to 

increase or decrease the minimum 

annual percentage rate for random drug 

testing is based on the reported positive 

rate for the entire industry, testing data 

submitted by foreign repair stations will 

be included in this calculation. Foreign 

repair stations with a waiver under 

section 120.10 are exempt from the 

obligations under subparts E and F of 14 

CFR part 120; therefore, data will not be 

provided or considered in a random 

testing rate. 

Addition of Unannounced 

Inspections. One individual commented 

that the FAA should mandate all foreign 

Aviation Maintenance Inspection and 

Repair on all U.S.-registered commercial 

aircraft, components, and articles to also 

mirror the U.S. by allowing 

unannounced inspections by the FAA 

and requiring duty time limitations. The 

commenter further stated that the 

NPRM’s current provisions, though 

promising, may benefit from a more 

granular examination to enhance the 

effectiveness of the proposed rule and 

address potential loopholes that might 

arise in practical implementation. The 

final rule implements a statutory 

mandate to require acceptable drug and 

alcohol testing of certain part 145 repair 

station employees outside the U.S. 

consistent with local laws where the 

repair station is located. Because this 

mandate does not include any changes 

to inspections or duty time limitations, 

this comment is outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

More Inclusive Mandate. An 

individual commented that they 

advocate for a more inclusive mandate 

to mirror current U.S. regulations to 

ensure that the final regulations are not 

only effective but also resilient to the 

evolving landscape of Commercial 

Aviation Maintenance, Inspection and 

Repair to include both aircraft, 

components, and articles of all parts 121 

and 145 entities outside of the U.S. This 

comment is outside the scope of the 

Congressional mandate and this 

rulemaking. This final rule implements 

a mandate to require acceptable drug 

and alcohol testing of certain part 145 

repair station employees responsible for 

safety-sensitive maintenance on part 

121 air carrier aircraft outside the U.S. 

consistent with local laws where the 

repair station is located. Congress did 

not direct the FAA to comprehensively 

regulate entities or activities outside the 

U.S. 

Withdrawal of the Rule. ARSA 

commented that the FAA may comply 

with the statutory mandate by 

withdrawing the NPRM. The FAA 

disagrees. Section 302 of the 2024 Act 

directed the FAA to issue a final rule 

that carries out the requirements of 

section 2112(b) of the 2016 Act within 

18 months of the 2024 Act’s enactment. 

Conversely, the 2016 Act required a 

rulemaking to be ‘‘finalized.’’ 

Accordingly, Congress has directed the 

FAA to publish these regulations, and 

withdrawal would not be considered 

publication of a final rule. 

Definitions. An anonymous 

commenter requested the FAA define 

the term ‘‘part 121 air carrier aircraft,’’ 

specifically asking whether it means the 

aircraft needs to be on the part 121 

Operations Specifications, and if it 

needs to be in revenue service. The 

commenter believed a definition is 

necessary, and that the explanation in 

the preamble to the rule was 

insufficient. The FAA disagrees that a 

definition of ‘‘part 121 air carrier 

aircraft’’ is needed in this rule. 

Historically, testing applies to 

maintenance personnel who repair 

aircraft or aircraft parts listed on the 

part 121 air carrier’s Operations 

Specifications (D085). 

V. Severability 

As discussed earlier in the final rule, 

Congress directed the FAA to issue a 

final rule that requires all part 145 

repair station employees responsible for 

safety-sensitive maintenance functions 

on part 121 air carrier aircraft outside 

the U.S. to be subject to an alcohol and 

controlled substances testing program 

determined acceptable by the 

Administrator and consistent with the 

applicable laws of the country in which 

the repair station is located. 49 U.S.C. 

44733(d)(2).38 Consistent with that 

mandate, the FAA is requiring foreign 

repair stations to comply with 14 CFR 

part 120 and 49 CFR part 40, subject to 

any waivers and exemptions. However, 

the FAA recognizes that these distinct 

pathways for compliance and certain 

provisions of this final rule will affect 

foreign repair stations and various 

stakeholders in different ways. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that the 

various provisions of this final rule are 

severable and able to operate 

functionally if severed from each other. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

In the event a court were to invalidate 

one or more of this final rule’s 

provisions, the remaining provisions 

should stand, thus allowing the FAA to 

continue to carry out Congress’s 

statutory commands and objectives 

concerning the safety of maintenance on 

part 121 air carrier aircraft conducted by 

certificated repair stations located 

outside the U.S. 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider the impacts 

of regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, and 

Executive Order 14094 (‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review’’) direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify the costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies 

to prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183 million 

using the most current (2023) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. The FAA has provided a 

detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) in the docket for this rulemaking. 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: will result 

in benefits that justify costs; is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 

but raises legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities or the principles set forth in 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094; 

will create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States; 

and will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

These analyses are summarized below. 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

In response to Congressional 

direction, the FAA requires certificated 

part 145 repair stations located outside 

the U.S. and its territories whose 

employees perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft to ensure those 

employees are subject to a controlled 

substances and alcohol testing program 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located. This rule requires a part 145 

repair station located outside the 

territory of the U.S. to cover its 

employees performing safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft under its own testing 

program that meets the requirements of 

49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120. 

However, if a part 145 repair station 

cannot meet one or all requirements in 

49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the laws of the 

country where the repair station is 

located are inconsistent with the 

regulations), it may apply for an 

exemption using the process described 

in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a part 145 

repair station cannot meet one or all 

requirements in 14 CFR part 120, it may 

apply for a waiver in accordance with 

the waiver authority established in this 

rule. In addition, foreign governments, 

on behalf of their repair station 

operators within their territories, may 

request a waiver based on recognition of 

existing requirements promulgated 

under the laws of the country as a 

compatible alternative that contains the 

minimum key elements of 14 CFR part 

120. However, if a foreign government 

chooses not to avail itself of this option, 

§ 120.10 will provide that an individual 

foreign repair station may make its own 

request for waiver based on recognition 

of an existing testing program that meets 

the key elements identified in the 

regulation. 

Although the FAA was unable to 

identify any quantifiable benefits to this 

rulemaking at this time, this rulemaking 

applies the FAA’s existing primary tool 

for detecting and deterring substance 

abuse by safety-sensitive aviation 

employees, especially illegal drug use, 

throughout the international aviation 

community to enhance aviation safety. 

Since the rule provides multiple 

opportunities for waiver, the FAA 

estimated low- and high-cost cases. The 

low-cost case assumes all countries with 

certificated repair stations will submit a 

request for waiver based on recognition. 

The total undiscounted cost is $129,012 

with the cost to industry at $48,129 and 

$80,882 to the FAA. At a seven percent 

discount rate, the total cost is $116,690, 

$64,540 annualized, and $123,459 at a 

three percent discount rate, $64,521 

annualized. The benefits remain the 

same in the low-case as in the high-case. 

In the high-cost case the total cost, at 

seven percent present value, of this rule 

equals the foreign repair station cost of 

$62 million, plus FAA cost of $6.5 

million for a total of $68.5 million 

($69.8 million at three percent present 

value) over five years. The FAA has 

placed the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for this rule in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

• Part 145 Certificated Foreign Repair 

Stations outside the U.S. that perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance functions 

on part 121 aircraft. 

• The FAA Office of Aerospace 

Medicine. 

Costs of This Rule 

Part 145 certificated foreign repair 

stations outside the U.S. and the FAA 

will incur the cost of this final rule. In 

the low-cost case the FAA assumes all 

countries with certificated repair 

stations will submit a request for a 

waiver based on recognition. The cost to 

the industry consists of reporting and 

submission costs for the request. The 

cost to the FAA consists of review of the 

request. 

TABLE 2—PRICE LEVEL ADJUSTED COST FOR THE WAIVER BASED ON RECOGNITION

[2022 U.S. dollars] 

Year Industry FAA Total 

Discounted 

costs 

(7%) 

Discounted 

Costs 

(3%) 

1 ........................................................................................................... $24,468 $41,063 $65,532 $61,244 $63,623 

2 ........................................................................................................... 23,661 39,819 63,480 55,446 59,836 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103441 

TABLE 2—PRICE LEVEL ADJUSTED COST FOR THE WAIVER BASED ON RECOGNITION—Continued 

[2022 U.S. dollars] 

Year Industry FAA Total 

Discounted 

costs 

(7%) 

Discounted 

Costs 

(3%) 

Total .............................................................................................. 48,129 80,882 129,012 116,690 123,459 

Annualized ........................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 64,540 64,521 

In the high-cost case, the estimated 

cost of the final rule to part 145 

certificated foreign repair stations are 

the costs to implement a drug and 

alcohol testing program that adheres to 

U.S. domestic testing standards. Cost to 

foreign repair stations will consist of 

developing a drug and alcohol testing 

program, training, testing safety 

sensitive maintenance employees for 

drugs and alcohol, and documentation. 

Total cost to foreign repair stations over 

five years, at seven percent present 

value, sums to $49.6 million with an 

annualized cost of $12.1 million. At 

three percent present value, estimated 

total cost to foreign repair stations is 

$55.6 million with an annualized cost of 

$12.1 million. 

TABLE 3—COST TO PART 145 FOREIGN REPAIR STATIONS OVER 5 YEARS

[$Millions] * 

Year 

Program and 

training 

development & 

maintenance 

Training Testing 

(drug and alcohol) 

Annual 

reports 

Total cost 

(7% PV) 

Total cost 

(3% PV) 

1 ........................................................................... $0.4 $7.6 $0.0 $2.1 $9.4 $9.8 

2 ........................................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.5 6.8 11.0 11.9 

3 ........................................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.5 6.8 10.4 11.6 

4 ........................................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.6 6.9 9.7 11.3 

5 ........................................................................... 0.3 1.0 4.6 6.9 9.1 11.0 

Total .............................................................. 1.6 11.7 18.2 29.4 49.6 55.6 

*These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

Cost to the FAA would include 

inspections and the necessary 

documentation associated with 

monitoring these repair stations. Total 

cost to FAA over five years, at seven 

percent present value, sums to $6.5 

million with an annualized cost of $1.6 

million. At three percent present value, 

total cost is $7.4 million with an 

annualized cost of $1.6 million. 

Benefits of This Rule 

Congress mandated that the FAA 

propose a rule that establishes drug and 

alcohol testing programs for foreign 

repair stations. Any benefits of the 

regulations would result from potential 

reductions in safety risks, any 

improvements in safety in detecting and 

deterring drug use and/or alcohol 

misuse, and reductions in lost worker 

productivity. The FAA concludes that 

two specific sets of benefits may accrue 

from this rulemaking: 

• The prevention of potential injuries 

and fatalities and property losses 

resulting from accidents attributed to 

controlled substances use/alcohol 

misuse or neglect or error on the part of 

individuals whose judgement or motor 

skills may be impaired by the presence 

of alcohol or drugs; and 

• The potential reduction in 

absenteeism, lost worker productivity, 

and other cost to employers, as well as 

improved general safety in the 

workplace, by the deterrence of drug use 

and/or alcohol misuse. 

However, the FAA lacks sufficient 

data to estimate a baseline level of safety 

risk associated with a drug and alcohol 

testing program at part 145 certificated 

foreign repair stations that perform 

safety-sensitive maintenance on part 

121 aircraft. Additionally, it is difficult 

to estimate (and the FAA does not have 

data on) the impact of the final rule in 

detecting and deterring drug use and/or 

alcohol misuse. To estimate safety and 

productivity benefits that would result 

from the proposed rule, the FAA would 

need estimates of the following: 

• Baseline risks attributable to drug 

use and/or alcohol misuse; 

• Effectiveness of the rule; and 

• Value of the reduction in risk of 

affected outcomes. 

The FAA sought comments on this 

issue and did not receive any data. The 

FAA also requested that commenters 

submit data that would allow it to 

quantify the safety and productivity 

benefits of extending the proposed rule 

to foreign aircraft mechanics employed 

directly by part 121 certificate holders 

and did not receive any data. 

Baseline Risks Attributable to Drug Use 

and/or Alcohol Misuse 

The FAA does not have data to 

estimate a baseline level of safety risk 

associated with safety-sensitive 

maintenance personnel drug use and/or 

alcohol misuse. The FAA acknowledges 

it is aware of no accidents or incidents 

related to safety-sensitive maintenance 

personnel using drugs or misusing 

alcohol. The FAA may use accidents or 

incidents related to part 121 aircraft that 

list maintenance as either a cause or 

factor in the accident report as a proxy 

to assess the decreased risk of injuries, 

fatalities, and property losses. However, 

it is difficult to attribute an accident or 

incident that occurs months after the 

maintenance was completed to poor 

maintenance work related to drug use 

and/or alcohol misuse. 

Effectiveness of the Rule 

The FAA would also need data on the 

effect of the rule on maintenance 

workers’ drug use and/or alcohol misuse 

and the resulting effect on job 

performance. For example, drug and 

alcohol programs may serve as a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39 DOT Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a 

Statistical Life. Economic Analyses. Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation. https://

www.transportation.gov/office-policy/ 

transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis. 

deterrent, resulting in less drug use and/ 

or alcohol misuse by employees and 

higher productivity. However, it would 

be difficult to analyze the direct causal 

effect of less drug use and/or alcohol 

misuse to improved productivity. The 

FAA would need to retrieve extensive 

data, such as employees’ health levels, 

employees’ sleep patterns, changes to 

operating procedures, levels of 

education and training, and staffing 

levels, amongst other factors, to isolate 

the direct effect of a decrease in drug 

use or alcohol misuse on productivity 

levels. Additionally, even if this data 

were available, the analysis would be 

extensive and there would be academic 

questions regarding whether the causal 

effect was properly measured. 

Additionally, as mentioned above, 

there are no accidents or incidents 

directly related to drug use and/or 

alcohol misuse to estimate the effect of 

the rule on injuries, fatalities, or 

property loss. Therefore, there is a lack 

of information to establish a baseline. 

Value of Risk Reduction 

The safety risks from drug use and/or 

alcohol misuse are increased risk of 

injuries and fatalities in the event of an 

accident or incident. The FAA values 

the reductions in such risks using the 

value of statistical life (VSL) for 

fatalities and fractions of the VSL based 

on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury 

Scale (MAIS) for injuries. The 

Department of Transportation guidance 

on valuing reductions in fatalities and 

injuries 39 could be used to monetize 

and quantify estimates of the potential 

safety benefits associated with this 

rulemaking. 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternative 1—the Status Quo—The 

status quo represents a situation in 

which the FAA would not propose to 

require part 145 foreign repair stations 

to test their safety-sensitive 

maintenance personnel for drugs and 

alcohol. This alternative is counter to 

Congressional direction and, therefore, 

rejected. 

Alternative 2—The FAA would work 

through ICAO to create an international 

standard for drug and alcohol testing of 

maintenance personnel at repair 

stations. While the FAA is willing to 

work with ICAO, 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) 

requires the FAA to expeditiously 

proceed with this rulemaking. In other 

words, Congress directed the FAA to 

establish a program acceptable to the 

Administrator; working through ICAO 

to create an international standard may 

not expeditiously meet this intention 

given the time, resources, and scope of 

the adoption of an international 

standard. This alternative may not meet 

Congressional direction due to the 

multitude of Member State equities 

considered in the implementation of an 

ICAO standard. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121) and the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of the regulatory action on small 

business and other small entities and to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The FAA published an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

in the proposed rule to aid the public in 

commenting on the potential impacts to 

small entities. The FAA considered the 

public comments in developing the final 

rule and this Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A FRFA 

must contain the following: 

(1) A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

(2) A statement of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

(3) The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

(4) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

(5) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

(6) A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each of the other significant 

alternatives to the rule considered by 

the agency which affect the impact on 

small entities was rejected. 

1. A Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

This rule requires certificated part 145 

repair stations located outside the 

territory of the United States (U.S.) to 

ensure that employees who perform 

aircraft maintenance on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft are subject to a drug and 

alcohol testing program. A part 145 

repair station located outside the 

territory of the U.S. will cover its 

employees performing maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft 

under its own testing program meeting 

the requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 

14 CFR part 120. If a part 145 repair 

station cannot meet one or all 

requirements in 49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the 

laws of the country where the repair 

station is located are inconsistent with 

the regulations), the part 145 repair 

station may apply for an exemption 

using the process described in 49 CFR 

40.7. Similarly, if a part 145 repair 

station cannot meet one or all 

requirements in 14 CFR part 120, they 

may apply for a waiver in accordance 

with waiver authority established in this 

rule. 

In addition, foreign governments may 

request a waiver, on behalf of their 

repair station operators within their 

territories, based on recognition of 

existing requirements promulgated 

under the laws of the country as a 

compatible alternative that contains the 

minimum key elements of 14 CFR part 

120. However, if a foreign government 

chooses not to avail itself of this option, 

§ 120.10 provides that an individual 

foreign repair station may request its 

own waiver based on recognition of an 

existing testing program that meets the 

key elements identified in the 

regulation. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.), 

specifically 49 U.S.C. 106 and 49 U.S.C. 

45102. This final rule is further 

promulgated under section 308 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (49 U.S.C. 44733); section 2112 of 

the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 

Act of 2016 (the 2016 Act), which 

directed publication of a notice of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103443 

40 13 CFR 121.105(a)(1). The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act defines a ‘‘small business’’ as having 

the same meaning as ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 

601(3). Section 121.105 of 13 CFR contains the 

Small Business Administration’s implementing 

regulations clarifying the definition of ‘‘small 

business concern.’’ 

41Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. 

Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. 

https://data.sba.gov/dataset/small-business-sizestandards/resource/d89a5f17-ab8e-4698-9031- 

dfeb34d0a773. 

42Final Rule, Supplemental Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged 

in Specified Aviation Activities: Supplemental 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 76 FR 12559 

(Mar. 8, 2011). 

43The calculation is as follows: 977*.9328 = 

911.31. This estimate is rounded up to 912. 

44 $60,896,928/977 = $762,330.53. 

proposed rulemaking in accordance 

with 49 U.S.C. 44733; and section 302 

of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, 

which directed the issuance of a final 

rule carrying out the requirements of 

section 2112 of the 2016 Act. 

2. Significant Issues Raised in Public 

Comments in Response to the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The FAA received a comment 

summarized and acknowledged above 

concerning impacts to small entities. In 

response to commenters concerns, in 

this final rule, the FAA allows foreign 

governments, on behalf of certificated 

repair stations within their territories, 

and individual foreign repair stations 

subject to the rule, to obtain a waiver 

based on recognition of a compatible 

alternative that contains minimum key 

elements in lieu of compliance with 

certain components of the Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program. 

3. A Response to SBA Comments 

The FAA did not receive comments 

from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the SBA in response to the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

provided in the proposed rule. 

4. Small Entities To Which the Rule 

Will Apply 

This rule will impact part 145 repair 

stations located outside the territory of 

the U.S. that perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act defines a small business 

as ‘‘a business entity organized for 

profit, with a place of business located 

in the United States, and which operates 

primarily within the United States or 

which makes a significant contribution 

to the U.S. economy through payment of 

taxes or use of American products, 

materials or labor.’’ 40 While the 

regulatory flexibility determination does 

not require small foreign entities to be 

considered, foreign repair stations may 

be using U.S. components or labor, 

especially if they are working on U.S.- 

manufactured aircraft; therefore, the 

FAA assumes the RFA applies. 

The SBA established size standards 

for various types of economic activities, 

or industries, under the North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS).41 These size standards 

generally define small businesses based 

on the number of employees or annual 

receipts. Table 4 shows the SBA size 

standard, based on the NAICS code, 

applicable to repair stations, as it 

encompasses air transport support 

activities to include aircraft 

maintenance and repair services. 

TABLE 4—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES

NAICS code Description Size standard 

488190 ................................ Other Support Activities for Air Transportation ............................................. $40.0 million. 

Source: SBA. 

NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System. 

SBA = Small Business Administration. 

Although the FAA was able to 

identify a size standard for repair 

stations to be considered small, the FAA 

lacks financial data to determine if 

foreign repair stations meet the 

applicable size standard. Instead, the 

FAA provides an analysis estimating the 

total cost to small entities based on 

available data for domestic repair 

stations. A 2011 antidrug and alcohol 

misuse prevention rule for domestic 

repair stations analyzed the effect on 

domestic repair stations that were small 

entities and subcontractors those 

entities used. That rule based the 

regulatory flexibility determination 

analysis on a Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) study that used 

Dun & Bradstreet data to estimate the 

share of domestic repair stations that 

would be considered small entities.42

The findings show that 93.28% of 

domestic repair stations would be 

classified as small entities. 

Extrapolating this estimate to the 977 

foreign repair stations used in the 

analysis of this rulemaking results in 

912 foreign repair stations that could be 

considered small entities.43

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

Based on the total nominal cost of the 

rule to repair stations, $60.9 million, the 

cost per repair station is $62,331.44

Multiplying the cost per repair station 

by the estimated 912 repair stations that 

are small entities results in a total cost 

to small entities of $56.8 million over 

five years. Table 5 shows the estimated 

annualized compliance costs by 

category. 

TABLE 5—AVERAGE COST OF COMPLIANCE AND SMALL ENTITIES

Category Number of 

small entities 

Average annualized 

cost per repair 

station 

Program and Training Development & Maintenance Cost ..................................................................... 912 $322.52 

Training .................................................................................................................................................... 912 1,942.83 

Testing Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 912 3,027.79 

Paperwork ................................................................................................................................................ 912 4,897.96 

1. Based on a baseline of existing practices and using a 7% discount rate. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The final rule also allows foreign 

governments, on behalf of certificated 

repair stations within their territories, 

and individual foreign repair stations 

subject to the rule, to obtain a waiver 

based on recognition of a compatible 

alternative that contains minimum key 

elements in lieu of compliance with 

certain components of the Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program. Entities that 

choose this means of compliance will 

incur $1,325 in one-time costs. 

6. Significant Alternatives Considered 

Alternative 1—the Status Quo—The 

status quo represents a situation in 

which the FAA would not require part 

145 foreign repair stations to test their 

safety-sensitive maintenance personnel 

for drugs and alcohol. This alternative is 

counter to Congressional direction and, 

therefore, rejected. 

Alternative 2—The FAA would work 

through ICAO to create an international 

standard for drug and alcohol testing of 

maintenance personnel at repair 

stations. While the FAA is willing to 

work with ICAO, 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) 

requires the FAA to expeditiously 

proceed with this rulemaking. In other 

words, Congress directed the FAA to 

establish a program acceptable to the 

Administrator; working through ICAO 

to create an international standard may 

not expeditiously meet this intention 

given the time, resources, and scope of 

the adoption of an international 

standard. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the U.S. Pursuant to these 

Acts, the establishment of standards is 

not considered an unnecessary obstacle 

to the foreign commerce of the U.S., so 

long as the standard has a legitimate 

domestic objective, such as the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This rulemaking is 

congressionally mandated. The FAA 

assessed the potential effect of this rule 

and determined that it ensures the 

safety of the American public. Several 

commenters including organizations 

representing the interests of foreign 

governments, the commercial aviation 

industry, aviation workers, and foreign 

repair stations voiced their opposition 

to an FAA drug and alcohol testing 

standard for foreign repair stations. As 

discussed in this preamble, these 

commenters cited failure to recognize 

each nation’s sovereignty. They also 

noted that ICAO would be the more 

appropriate vehicle to set worldwide 

standards. As a result, this rulemaking 

could create an obstacle or retaliation to 

foreign commerce. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$183.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This action contains the following 

amendments to the existing information 

collection requirements previously 

approved under OMB Control Number 

2120–0535. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted 

these information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

Summary: Under §§ 120.1, 120.123 

and 120.227, this rule extends the drug 

and alcohol testing regulations beyond 

the territory of the U.S. certificated part 

145 repair stations located outside the 

territory of the United States to 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program in accordance with 14 CFR part 

120 and 49 CFR part 40 to cover their 

employees who perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft. Each repair station 

would be required to obtain an Antidrug 

and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program 

Operations Specification. In addition, 

each repair station located outside the 

territory of the U.S. would be required 

to provide drug and alcohol testing 

program management information 

system (MIS) data. 

In addition, the final rule establishes 

a waiver process for foreign 

governments, on behalf of certificated 

repair stations within their territories, 

and individual foreign repair stations 

subject to the rule to obtain a waiver 

based on recognition of a country or 

foreign repair station’s existing 

requirements or testing program(s) 

promulgated under the laws of the 

country as a compatible alternative that 

contains minimum elements of 14 CFR 

part 120. Affected foreign repair stations 

that receive a waiver based on 

recognition by the Administrator will be 

relieved from comprehensive 

compliance with subparts E and F of 14 

CFR part 120 (in turn, providing relief 

from 49 CFR part 40) and will not need 

to seek further waivers or exemptions 

from 14 CFR part 120 or 49 CFR part 40. 

Use: The information will be used by 

the part 145 repair station located 

outside of the territory of the U.S. to 

certify implementation and 

maintenance of a drug and alcohol 

testing program. The FAA’s Drug 

Abatement Compliance and 

Enforcement Inspectors will use this 

information to identify those foreign 

repair stations with an active program 

for inspection scheduling. Inspections 

are used to verify compliance with the 

drug and alcohol testing regulations and 

requirements. In addition, the Drug 

Abatement Division will use the annual 

MIS data reported to calculate the 

annual random drug and alcohol testing 

rates in the aviation industry. 

Under the expanded waiver option, 

i.e., a waiver based on recognition, the 

information will be used by foreign 

governments, on behalf of their repair 

stations within their territories, or 

foreign repair stations if their regulating 

country does not avail themselves of 

this option, to demonstrate the foreign 

government or the part 145 repair 

stations located outside of the territory 

of the U.S. existing requirements 

promulgated under the laws of the 

country as a compatible alternative that 

contains the minimum key elements of 

14 CFR part 120. 

Respondents (including number of): 

There are currently 977 part 145 

certificated repair stations located in 65 

countries. 

Frequency: Part 145 repair stations 

located outside the territory of the U.S. 

will provide information for program 

certification only once; however, these 

repair stations will also incur annual 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103445 

45Based on the previous PRA, the FAA assumes 

16 hours in the first year to establish the testing 

program and one hour to register with the FAA’s 

Drug Abatement Division. Therefore, 17 hours are 

required for the first year. For each year after, the 

recurring time to update and maintain the testing 

list will be 16 hours. The average over five years 

results in the 16.2 hours per year. 

46Office and Administrative Support Workers 

(SOC 43–9199), May 2022; Mean Hourly Wage 

$20.75 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/May/ 

oes439199.htm. The total wage includes BLS 

compensation data. For 2020, BLS has wages at 70.5 

percent total compensation while benefits are 29.5 

percent. Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—December 2022. https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

03172023.htm. 

47Estimated number of records from 2018 to 

2022. 

48Average yearly cost is calculated by dividing 

total cost by five years. 

49 Information and Records Clerks (SOC 43– 

4000), May 2022; Mean Hourly Wage $23.67 https:// 

www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/naics3_481000.htm#43- 

4000. The total wage includes BLS compensation 

data. For 2022, BLS has wages at 70.5 percent total 

compensation while benefits are 29.5 percent. 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation— 

December 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_03172023.htm. 

50 29,728*2 = 59,4560.0 

51 178,365 + 178,365 + 59,456 = 416,186. 

52 872 + 145 + 29.728 = 30,745. 

53 30,745 + 1,017 = 31,762 

54 416,186 + 31,762 + 31,919 + 32,075 + 32,234 

= 544,176 

55This is broken down by category as 3,516 preemployment drug tests, 180,558 random drug tests, 

3,128 post-accident, reasonable cause, return to 

duty, and follow-up tests. 

program maintenance: e.g., updates to 

the programs per new guidance; the 

random pool list; and the overall testing 

process. The aggregate annual testing 

data would be provided electronically 

through the Department of 

Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol 

Management Information System. 

For a waiver based on recognition, 

foreign governments, or part 145 repair 

stations located outside the territory of 

the U.S. if their regulating country does 

not avail themselves of this option, will 

provide information for the 

Administrator’s approval only once. 

Annual Burden Estimate: 

1. BURDEN FOR PROGRAM CERTIFICATION AND ANNUAL PROGRAM MAINTENANCE

Documentation Number of 

repair stations 

Hours per 

repair station 

Hourly 

wage 

Total 

cost 

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification ............................................................................................................ 977 16.2 45 $29.43 46 $465,800 

2. BURDEN FOR ANNUAL TEST DATA

Documentation Total 

records 47

Time per 

record 

(hours) 

Hourly 

wage Total cost 

Average 

yearly 

cost 48

Training records .......................................................................................................................... 544,176 0.25 49 $33.57 $2,756,696 $551,339 

Records related to the alcohol and drug collection process, test results, refusal to test, employee dispute records, SAP reports, follow-up tests ............................................................. 262,384 5.0 34.47 26,584,052 5,316,810 

Total ............................................................................................................................................ 806,560 N/A N/A 29,340,748 5,868,150 

To calculate the number of drug and 

alcohol training records, the FAA took 

the 2021 data showing 147,194 

mechanics and 29,439 supervisors and 

accounted for a 0.49 percent growth rate 

over five years. Accounting for these 

rates results in an initial first year total 

of 148,637 mechanics and 29,728 

supervisors. This is a total of 178,365 

employees. In the first year all 

mechanics and supervisors will take 

anti-drug and alcohol training. These 

are two separate trainings. This 

requirement will result in 178,365 

records for anti-drug training and 

178,365 for alcohol training. In addition, 

supervisors will have to take an 

additional supervisor reasonable cause/ 

reasonable suspicion determinations 

training for drugs and alcohol. This 

requirement will add another 59,456 

records since they are two separate 

trainings as well.50 Therefore, in the 

first year, there will be a total of 416,186 

records.51

For year two and beyond, for drug 

records, the total records reflect the 

increase in new mechanics and 

supervisors which will be required to 

take the drug training. Using the growth 

rate this results in 727 mechanics and 

145 supervisors for a total of 872 

records. The 145 new supervisors will 

also have to take the reasonable cause/ 

reasonable suspicion determinations for 

drugs training. In addition, there is 

recurrent reasonable cause/reasonable 

suspicion determinations for drugs 

training that all supervisors will have to 

take every 12 to 18 months. In year two, 

this results in 29,728 supervisors taking 

the recurring trainings. Thus, the 

records for drug training in year two is 

30,745.52 In addition, new mechanics 

and supervisors will be required to take 

alcohol training and supervisors will 

have to take the reasonable cause/ 

reasonable suspicion determinations for 

alcohol training. This adds another 

1,017 records. There is no recurrent 

alcohol training for supervisors. 

Therefore, in year two the total records 

are 31,762.53

The same calculation for year two is 

repeated for years three through five. 

There are 31,919 records in year three, 

32,075 in year four, and 32,234 in year 

five. This results in a total of 544,176 

total training records over the five 

years.54

To calculate the number of records 

related to alcohol and drug collection, 

the FAA sums the number of preemployment drug tests, random drug 

and alcohol tests, and post-accident, 

reasonable cause, return to duty, and 

follow-up drug and alcohol tests per 

year beginning in year two. First, for 

drug testing, every new employee 

performing maintenance will be 

required to take a pre-employment drug 

test but not an alcohol test. Second, the 

FAA estimates 25 percent of current 

employees performing maintenance will 

be randomly drug tested per year. Third, 

there will be post-accident, reasonable 

cause, return to duty, or follow-up 

testing. The FAA estimates 1.70 percent 

of employees tested in a given year will 

be tested again under this category. The 

total drug tests over the five years is 

187,202.55

For alcohol testing, no preemployment alcohol testing is required. 

The other two categories of alcohol 

testing will be the same as for drug 

testing. However, the FAA estimates 

random drug testing will occur at a rate 

of 10 percent of current employees and 

4.10 percent for post-accident, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

56This is broken down by category as 72,223 

random drug tests and 2,959 post-accident, 

reasonable cause, return to duty, and follow-up 

tests. 

57Each foreign government that regulates part 145 

repair stations will provide one submission. 

58The total hours per submission is 20 hours and 

is disaggregated between a government program 

analyst that will do 15 hours of the work and a 

government manager that will do 5 hours of work. 

59The hourly wage is the weighted average 

between the wages of the government program 

analyst and the government manager. Since the 

government program analyst will do 15 hours of the 

total 20 hours of work their wage, $59.93, is 

multiplied by 0.75 (15/20 = 0.75). The government 

manager does the other 5 hours of work (5/20 = 

0.25) and thus their wage, $86.41, is multiplied by 

0.25. (($59.93*0.75) + ($86.41*0.25) = $66.25). 

FAA Technical Pay Band, K Band with 

Washington DC locality; effective Jan. 2022, 

minimum salary $131,917. The total loaded salary 

of $179,737 is divided by 2,080 hours to get the 

$86.41 hourly wage. https://web.archive.org/web/ 

20220402230925/https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/ 

files/2022-02/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx. 

FAA Technical Pay Band, I Band with 

Washington DC locality; effective Jan. 2022, 

minimum salary $90,877. The total loaded salary of 

$123,820 is divided by 2,080 hours to get the $59.93 

hourly wage. https://web.archive.org/web/ 

20220402230925/https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/ 

files/2022-02/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx. 

reasonable cause, return to duty, and 

follow-up tests. The total alcohol tests 

over the five years is 75,182.56 Taking 

the sum of drug and alcohol tests results 

in 262,384 records related to alcohol 

and drug collection. 

WAIVER BASED ON RECOGNITION

Documentation Total 

submissions 57

Time per 

submission 58

Hourly 

wage 59 Total cost 

Request for a Waiver Based on Recognition .................................................... 65 20 $66.25 $86,124 

The FAA assumes that every foreign 

government that regulates part 145 

repair stations located outside the 

territory of the U.S. will submit a 

request for a waiver based on 

recognition. There are 65 countries that 

have part 145 repair stations within 

their territories so there will be 65 

submissions. Each submission will 

require 20 hours at an hourly wage of 

$66.25. Thus, the total cost for all 65 of 

the submissions is $86,124. This will be 

one time cost. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

Federalism. The FAA has determined 

that this action will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, or 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

will not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The FAA has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under the executive 

order and is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609 and has determined that this 

action could create differences in 

international regulatory requirements. 

The FAA acknowledges that a foreign 

government may ask the FAA to revisit 

certain international agreements, as 

discussed in section IV.I, to 

accommodate this action. 

VIII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the NPRM, all comments 

received, this final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at https://www.regulations.gov 

using the docket number listed above. A 

copy of this final rule will be placed in 

the docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at https://

www.federalregister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may 

also be found on the FAA’s Regulations 

and Policies website at https://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this final rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103447 

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit https://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 120 

Alcoholism, Air carriers, Alcohol 

abuse, Alcohol testing, Aviation safety, 

Drug abuse, Drug testing, Operators, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Safety-sensitive, 

Transportation. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL 

TESTING PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 120 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101–40103, 

40113, 40120, 41706, 41721, 44106, 44701, 

44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711, 44733, 

45101–45105, 46105, 46306. 

■ 2. Revise and republish § 120.1 to read 

as follows: 

§ 120.1 Applicability. 

This part applies to the following 

persons: 

(a) All air carriers and operators 

certificated under part 119 of this 

chapter authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121 or part 135 of 

this chapter, all air traffic control 

facilities not operated by the FAA or by 

or under contract to the U.S. military; 

and all operators as defined in 14 CFR 

91.147. 

(b) All individuals who perform, 

either directly or by contract, a safetysensitive function listed in subpart E or 

subpart F of this part. 

(c) All part 145 certificate holders 

located in the territory of the United 

States who perform safety-sensitive 

functions and elect to implement a drug 

and alcohol testing program under this 

part. 

(d) Beginning December 20, 2027, all 

part 145 certificate holders outside the 

territory of the United States who 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft, 

except that section 120.5 and subparts E 

and F of this part do not apply to part 

145 certificate holders outside the 

territory of the United States who 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft 

that have obtained recognition pursuant 

to § 120.10. 

(e) All contractors who elect to 

implement a drug and alcohol testing 

program under this part. 

■ 3. Effective December 20, 2027, 

amend § 120.1 by revising paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 120.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) All part 145 certificate holders 

outside the territory of the United States 

who perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft, except that section 120.5 

and subparts E and F of this part do not 

apply to part 145 certificate holders 

outside the territory of the United States 

who perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft that have obtained 

recognition pursuant to § 120.10. 

■ 4. Revise § 120.5 to read as follows: 

§ 120.5 Procedures. 

Each employer having a drug and 

alcohol testing program under this part 

must ensure that all drug and alcohol 

testing conducted pursuant to this part 

complies with the procedures set forth 

in 49 CFR part 40 and any exemptions 

issued to that employer by the 

Department of Transportation in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.7. 

■ 5. Add § 120.9 to read as follows: 

§ 120.9 Waivers for Part 145 certificate 

holders outside the territory of the United 

States. 

(a) A part 145 certificate holder whose 

employees perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft outside the territory of 

the United States may request a waiver 

from the Administrator from any 

requirements under 14 CFR part 120, 

subpart E or F, if specific requirements 

of subpart E or F are inconsistent with 

the laws of the country where the repair 

station is located. 

(b) Each waiver request must include, 

at a minimum, the following elements: 

(1) Information about the 

organization, including the name and 

mailing address and, if desired, other 

contact information such as a fax 

number, telephone number, or email 

address; 

(2) The specific section or sections of 

this part from which the organization 

seeks a waiver; 

(3) The reasons why granting the 

waiver would not adversely affect the 

prevention of accidents and injuries 

resulting from the use of prohibited 

drugs and/or the misuse of alcohol by 

employees; 

(4) A copy of the law that is 

inconsistent with the provision(s) of this 

part from which a waiver is sought; 

(5) An explanation of how the law is 

inconsistent with the provision(s) of this 

part from which a waiver is sought; and 

(6) A description of the alternative 

means that will be used to achieve the 

objectives of the provision that is the 

subject of the waiver or, if applicable, a 

justification of why it would be 

impossible to achieve the objectives of 

the provision in any way. 

(c) Each request for a waiver must be 

submitted to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

(d) Each request for a waiver must be 

submitted at least 90 days before the 

organization needs it to take effect. 

■ 6. Add § 120.10 to read as follows: 

§ 120.10 Waiver based on recognition of a 

foreign government’s existing requirements 

or an existing testing program of a Part 145 

certificate holder outside the territory of the 

United States. 

(a) General. A foreign government on 

behalf of its part 145 certificate holders, 

or a part 145 certificate holder whose 

employees perform safety-sensitive 

maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft outside the territory of 

the United States (herein referred to as 

a foreign repair station), may request a 

waiver from the Administrator from the 

requirements of this part in recognition 

of the foreign government’s existing 

requirements, or the foreign repair 

station’s existing testing program 

developed consistent with the laws of 

its home country, as a compatible 

alternative to the requirements of this 

part. 

(b) Compatibility. A request for 

recognition must demonstrate that the 

foreign government’s existing 

requirements, or the foreign repair 

station’s existing testing program, 

contain the following key elements of 

this part: 

(1) A testing protocol or established 

consequences used to detect or deter, or 

both, employees who are responsible for 

safety-sensitive maintenance on part 

121 air carrier aircraft from misusing 

alcohol and using drugs. 

(2) An education or training program 

or materials that explain the impact and 

consequences of misusing alcohol and 

using drugs while performing safetysensitive maintenance. 

(3) The method used to rehabilitate 

and ensure that safety-sensitive 

maintenance employees who return to 

work on part 121 air carrier aircraft after 

a drug or alcohol test violation or 

consequence no longer misuse alcohol 

or use drugs. 

(c) Requests for recognition of a 

foreign government’s existing 

requirements or a foreign repair 

station’s existing testing program. (1) 

Each request for recognition of a foreign 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

government’s existing requirements or a 

foreign repair station’s existing testing 

program must contain: 

(i) The name, title, address, email 

address, and telephone number of the 

primary person to be contacted 

regarding review of the request; 

(ii) Documentation of the foreign 

government’s existing requirements or 

the foreign repair station’s existing 

testing program demonstrating that the 

requirements or program contain the 

key elements of this part described in 

paragraph (b) of this section, including, 

if appropriate, copies of applicable laws, 

regulations, and other requirements 

carrying the force of law; and 

(iii) Appropriate data, records, or 

supporting explanation for the 

Administrator to consider in 

determining whether the foreign 

government’s existing requirements or 

the foreign repair station’s existing 

testing program contain the key 

elements of this part; and 

(iv) A statement that the requestor 

intends to notify the Administrator 

within 30 days of any change to the key 

elements described in paragraph (b) of 

this section that form the basis of the 

Administrator’s recognition pursuant to 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section and 

provide a description of those changes 

in such notification. 

(2) Each request for recognition must 

be submitted to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

(3) Each request for recognition must 

be submitted at least 90 days before the 

organization needs it to take effect. 

(d) Disposition. (1) The Administrator 

will evaluate a request for recognition 

and may request additional information, 

documentation, or explanation, as 

needed, to supplement the request. 

(2) A foreign government’s existing 

requirements or a foreign repair station’s 

existing testing program will be 

recognized as a compatible alternative 

to the requirements of this part if the 

Administrator determines that: 

(i) The request complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section; and 

(ii) The foreign government’s existing 

requirements, or the foreign repair 

station’s existing testing program, 

contain the key elements of this part as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(e) Effect and validity. (1) Recognition 

by the Administrator issued to a foreign 

government pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) 

of this section will apply to all foreign 

repair stations within the territory of the 

foreign government and subject to the 

recognized compatible alternative to the 

requirements of this part. 

(2) Recognition by the Administrator 

will remain valid so long as the foreign 

government’s existing requirements, or 

the foreign repair station’s existing 

testing program, retains the key 

elements of this part that formed the 

basis of the Administrator’s recognition 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. 

(f) Compliance. (1) Each foreign repair 

station subject to existing requirements 

or an existing testing program 

recognized as a compatible alternative 

to the requirements of this part pursuant 

to paragraph (d)(2) of this section must 

maintain an FAA-issued letter on file 

documenting the recognition. 

(2) The FAA may modify, suspend, or 

withdraw recognition by the 

Administrator when: 

(i) A recognition is no longer valid; 

(ii) A foreign repair station fails to 

implement a testing program consistent 

with a recognition issued pursuant to 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section; or 

(iii) A foreign government or foreign 

repair station has not provided the 

notification described in paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) of this section. 

■ 7. Amend § 120.117 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(5); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as 

paragraph (a)(7); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 120.117 Implementing a drug testing 

program. 

(a) * * * 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

*******

(5) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United 

States who has your own drug testing program.

Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug 

Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20591, if you opt to conduct your own drug testing 

program. 

(6) A part 145 certificate holder located outside the territory of the 

United States whose employees perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition pursuant to § 120.10.

Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are an individual or 

company that intends to provide safetysensitive services by contract to a part 

119 certificate holder with authority to 

operate under part 121 and/or part 135 

of this chapter, an operation as defined 

in § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air 

traffic control facility not operated by 

the FAA or by or under contract to the 

U.S. military, use the following chart to 

determine what you must do if you opt 

to have your own drug testing program. 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

(1) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United 

States and opt to conduct your own program under this part.

(i) Have an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103449 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

(ii) Implement an FAA drug testing program no later than the date you 

start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate 

holder with authority to operate under part 121 or 135, or operator as 

defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer. 

(2) A part 145 certificate holder located outside the territory of the 

United States whose employees perform maintenance functions on 

part 121 air carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition pursuant to § 120.10.

(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

(ii) Implement a drug testing program acceptable to the Administrator 

no later than December 20, 2027, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer 

in accordance with any applicable waivers or exemptions. 

(3) A contractor who opts to implement a testing program under this 

part.

(i) Register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, 

(ii) Implement an FAA drug testing program no later than the date you 

start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate 

holder with authority to operate under part 121 or 135, or operator as 

defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air traffic control facility not 

operated by the FAA or by or under contract to the U.S. Military, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer. 

* * * * * ■ 8. Effective December 20, 2027, 

amend § 120.117 by revising paragraph 

(c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 120.117 Implementing a drug testing 

program. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

*******

(2) A part 145 certificate holder located outside the territory of the 

United States whose employees perform maintenance functions on 

part 121 air carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition pursuant to § 120.10.

(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

(ii) Implement a drug testing program acceptable to the Administrator, 

and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer 

in accordance with any applicable waivers or exemptions. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 120.123 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 120.123 Drug testing outside the territory 

of the United States. 

(a) Except for those testing processes 

applicable to persons testing pursuant to 

§ 120.1(d), no part of the testing process 

(including specimen collection, 

laboratory processing, and MRO actions) 

shall be conducted outside the territory 

of the United States. 

(1) Except for those persons testing 

pursuant to § 120.1(d), each employee 

who is assigned to perform safetysensitive functions solely outside the 

territory of the United States shall be 

removed from the random testing pool 

upon the inception of such assignment. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except for those persons testing 

pursuant to § 120.1(d), the provisions of 

this subpart shall not apply to any 

individual who performs a function 

listed in § 120.105 by contract for an 

employer outside the territory of the 

United States. 

■ 10. Amend § 120.225 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(5); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as 

paragraph (a)(7); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) 

introductory text and (d)(1). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 120.225 How to implement an alcohol 

testing program. 

(a) * * * 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

*******

(5) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United 

States who has your own alcohol testing program.

Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector or register with the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug 

Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20591, if you opt to conduct your own alcohol testing program. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
103450 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

(6) A part 145 certificate holder located outside the territory of the 

United States who performs safety-sensitive maintenance functions 

on part 121 air carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition 

pursuant to § 120.10.

Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are an individual or 

company that intends to provide safetysensitive services by contract to a part 

119 certificate holder with authority to 

operate under part 121 and/or part 135 

of this chapter, or an operator as defined 

in § 91.147 of this chapter, use the 

following chart to determine what you 

must do if you opt to have your own 

drug testing program. 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

(1) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United 

States and opt to conduct your own program under this part.

(i) Have an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specifications or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, 

(ii) Implement an FAA alcohol testing program no later than the date 

you start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate holder with the authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135, 

or operator as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer. 

(2) A part 145 certificate holder located outside of the territory of the 

United States who performs maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition pursuant to 

§ 120.10.

(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

(ii) Implement an alcohol testing program acceptable to the Administrator no later than December 20, 2027, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer 

in accordance with any applicable waivers or exemptions. 

(3) A contractor ......................................................................................... (i) Register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, 

(ii) Implement an FAA alcohol testing program no later than the date 

you start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate holder with authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135, or 

operator as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer. 

(d) To obtain an antidrug and alcohol 

misuse prevention program operations 

specification: 

(1) You must contact your FAA 

Principal Operations Inspector or 

Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

Provide him/her with the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Effective December 20, 2027, 

amend § 120.225 by revising paragraph 

(c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 120.225 How to implement an alcohol 

testing program. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

If you are . . . You must . . . 

*******

(2) A part 145 certificate holder located outside of the territory of the 

United States who performs maintenance functions on part 121 air 

carrier aircraft, unless you have received recognition pursuant to 

§ 120.10.

(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector. 

(ii) Implement an alcohol testing program acceptable to the Administrator, and 

(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer 

in accordance with any applicable waivers or exemptions. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 120.227 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 120.227 Employees located outside the 

U.S. 

(a) Except for those persons testing 

pursuant to § 120.1(d), no covered 

employee shall be tested for alcohol 

misuse while located outside the 

territory of the United States. 

(1) Except for those persons testing 

pursuant to § 120.1(d), each covered 

employee who is assigned to perform 

safety-sensitive functions solely outside 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103451 

the territory of the United States shall be 

removed from the random testing pool 

upon the inception of such assignment. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except for those persons testing 

pursuant to § 120.1(d), the provisions of 

this subpart shall not apply to any 

person who performs a safety-sensitive 

function by contract for an employer 

outside the territory of the United 

States. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 45102, 44731(d), in 

Washington, DC. 

Michael Gordon Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29837 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES6